Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Abd/JzG

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was Blank and keep for 30 days to allow the filing of a RfC. I will blank the page and it should be kept for 30 days to allow the filing of the necessary RfC. After 30 days (27 March 2009) the page should be deleted as any required material should have been placed in the RFAR. I will not protect the page as I trust that other editors will not restore the material. I note that nobody mentioned a 30 day period but both 14 and 60-90 were mentioned and I think that 30 days is sufficent time to file. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 22:20, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Abd/JzG

The context was apparently Abd being asked to provide evidence for a discussion at

Abd seems to want to keep this laundry list of grudges, every one of which has been raised multiple times and in multiple venues, and has failed to gain any traction in any of these venues. Complaints have been closed in several venues, in one case citing

• Delete -
  WP:STICK. Simon^KSK 22:00, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep - The precedent for keeping such evidence pages is clear (see [1]). --GoRight (talk) 22:12, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - The user's stated rationale for the page [2] no longer applies. But the main reason for deletion is that it has been used for harassment, and linked into article talk pages by Abd [3] during content disputes, as recently as two days ago[4]. This crosses the line quite a bit into an attack page (unlike GoRight's page above) which has no place on Wikipedia. I'm sympathetic to evidence pages for process but this demonstrates clear intention of its use as an attack page. Phil153 (talk) 23:19, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Shining light on the actions of powerful admins is a useful and often necessary thing to do. The page is devoted entirely to recounting and discussing the editor's behavior, not to making personal attacks on him as a person. *Dan T.* (talk) 00:41, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - two weeks is my guideline, it's older than that. Use it or lose it. Either there is wrongdoing to bring forward or there's simmering resentment and grudges to nurse. We are not a grudge-host. On the other hand, modern computers have gigabytes of personal storage space and I'm always happy to show people how to use Notepad. Franamax (talk) 01:35, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. There doesn't seem to be any current or immediately pending application for this page in any formal dispute resolution, nor has evidence been presented that the page page is essential (or even consequential) to a past or ongoing Arbitration or RfC. Franamax's assessment is on-target. While I wouldn't impose a hard two-week limit on all such pages, the balance is tipped by the fact that this page is – as Phil153 notes – being (mis)used as a bludgeon in content disputes. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:26, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This must be with reference to AN/I report which was not a content dispute, it was a notice re edit warring, without any request for content review or support. Assume JzG is right about the content. ... May JzG use edit warring, i.e., repeated assertion of content, knowing his edits are opposed, to maintain his preferred version? But many did insist on looking at it as a content dispute. Happens on AN/I, see User:Abd/MKR incident --Abd (talk) 03:55, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This was indeed an evidence page compiled for an RfAr request, see Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Cold_fusion#Cold_fusion_topic_bans_.28Clarification.29 filed by JzG. Deleting the file would make comments in the RfAr and other places unintelligible, so I will notify the appropriate Arbitration talk page. The first part of the page is neutral, the actions described, however, lead to some obvious conclusions, which I stated explicitly as my conclusions. If anything on that page is incorrect, it should be corrected (it's my user page and I'm responsible for the content, but I certainly would not object to corrections.) If there are relevant facts that should be stated to make the context of JzG's actions clear, they should be included, but I won't tolerate a massive barrage of irrelevancies. JzG was involved in articles related to Cold fusion, as shown. He used his administrative tools with regard to the articles and with regard to editors of the article and article Talk. This included protecting an article in his preferred version, direct blacklisting without prior discussion, and without logging, and, yes, it included blocking an editor, then blocking other IP, probably not the editor, for "block evasion," then topic banning the editor. I'm a bit surprised at this MfD coming from JzG. It will escalate the affair, rapidly. Perhaps it's time.

It should be known who referred to it in the RfAr, directly and indirectly. "indirect reference" includes reference to the claims of action while involved, made in my Comment prior to the creation of the subject page as evidence to back up the Comment. --Abd (talk) 18:04, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Statement by Abd 5th bullet point.
• Statement by GoRight refers to use of admin tools while involved, clearly in response to my comment above.
• Statement by DGG JzG is not an uninvolved editor on this subject and has no business making blocks or bans in this area. This is blatant abused of admin privileges, slightly ameliorated by his voluntarily bringing it here. I have no view on the underlying issue of what to do about Rothwell, but I think a topic ban against JzG is called for--and least an injunction of any further actions in this area that do are appear to make use of the admin bit.
• Statement by Phil153 JzG is an involved administrator with something of a POV on cold fusion. (This comment would have been very unlikely if the issue of involvement hadn't been raised, with evidence.) See comment below by Phil153 --Abd (talk) 18:04, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Statement by Durova Echoing the concerns of ABD and DGG above....
• [by Rocksanddirt re: admin recusal] While I agree with ABD and DGG above that JzG seems to be an 'involved' user within this subject matter, [the request for clarification is the required seeking of independent review].

And among the comments by arbitrators:

• Risker: [two issues here:] The second is whether or not JzG should be the admin to effectuate the blocks. I will point out that with 900+ active admins, this question could be made moot by any one of them.
• Carcharoth Agree also with GoRight's summary, as it matches my views as well.

JzG asserts a pile of irrelevancies in his nomination, it would lead to massive tl;dr if I addressed them. --Abd (talk) 03:39, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Yikes. Most of the above bullets neither required or used your evidence page - asserting that they referred to it is simply false. Note that I added my comment and evidence about JzG's involvement and POV before[5] you created your /Jzg subpage[6] or provided evidence of involvement,[7] so your "very unlikely" comment doesn't make sense. And your suggestion that I referred to it in any way is flat out false, since it didn't exist!
  Maybe
  you forgot that you added the page later as an edit to your section after most had commented.

• My delete vote here is because I strongly object to the way in which the page is continuing to be used for harassment and canvassing against what is mostly a hard working volunteer. That's what tips the balance. If you provide an accurate rationale in the lead, remove some of the more egregious comments, and most importantly, agree not to link it in article talk space or content disputes, then there would be zero reason to remove it and I'd favor keeping it. As it's currently being used, comments such as This raises serious questions about his competency to continue as an administrator are merely opinions that have the effect of attacking another editor, when linked inappropriately and not in an RfC, RfArb or similar. Phil153 (talk) 07:42, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Phil153, you are correct about the timing. However, you missed something. I made the claim of action while involved before you commented. I was then asked, off-wiki, for evidence to back this up, which I then provided. It's possible some others may have commented before the evidence page was put up. So you didn't refer to the evidence page, that's quite true. You referred to my claim of involvement, which was based at that point on my personal knowledge and judgment, only later backed up with diffs. You confirmed the claim.

Thanks for commenting, Phil153. I'm going to move my comments to the Talk page, they don't need to be on that page any more. I do have serious questions about JzG's current competence, something has badly damaged his balance. I've tried to nudge him gently, it didn't work. I asked him to identify someone he trusted to mediate. No response, just deletion of the request. I was proceeding slowly, one step in

WP:DR

at a time, but he escalated immediately to ArbComm. Many others have warned him, and it seems to have no effect. He treats that ArbComm case, see above, as some kind of victory, it was definitely not. He asked ArbComm to do something very, very dangerous, and ArbComm, quite correctly and wisely said, No, we will not consider this, it is premature. As was obvious to me and to others. My intervention was not, as he has claimed many times, an attempt to assist Rothwell; if I wanted Rothwell unbanned or unblocked, I'd have acted quite differently. No, my concern is improving Wikipedia process, and I only intervened in the ArbComm case because of the seriousness of what he was asking for, and upon request.

Now, about the use of the page in the RfAR. I made a comment and cited the page as evidence. Others did not cite the page directly, but they either referred to my comment or made comments that included or incorporated the opinion that JzG was using admin tools when involved. There was no other source or evidence for that presented, and if not for my comment and its evidence, the other comments wouldn't have existed. If this MfD concludes Delete, which seems unlikely to me, the same evidence will likely appear again, in a user RfC or mediation process, unless JzG amends his behavior. If I'm improperly citing this page somewhere, point it out, specifically, and I'll redact (including delinking), and if I don't, warn me formally. Please don't confuse the evidence page and its appropriateness with later usage of it. To claim that it is being inappropriately used, when no individual usage was challenged in situ, is simply blowing smoke, cart before horse, conclusion before evidence.--Abd (talk) 17:25, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not going to argue. The only problem I have with this page, since you removed the editorials to talk, is its linking in article talk pages during content disputes (the most recent example). You don't think that's inappropriate, so we're at an impass. Phil153 (talk) 19:05, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at the context; it wasn't about a content dispute, it was about edit warring, one editor reverting two, plus two others having supported the specific link, 6 removals for JzG vs. 3 for Enric Naval, 2 for me, plus the original removal (as it stood by the end of the AN/I report), and prior history of an editor allegedly edit warring with the article is relevant. The content is irrelevant: can edit warring be used to maintain preferred content? Policy says "No," (with exceptions that don't apply here). User:Abd/JzG should probably be renamed to User:Abd/Jzg and Cold fusion. It's very specific. (Martin Fleischmann is most notable for his Cold fusion announcement.) If the usage there, or anywhere, is challenged, it can be reviewed by other editors and deleted with consensus, though asserting removal with an edit is also okay (first time!). Thanks for the example, Phil. --Abd (talk) 21:18, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Actually it would appear to be very much in order to retain, and deletion would appear to violate WP rules about writing such pages -- users have a right to make such pages, and if we were remove all the "wrong" ones, we would just as surely be removing users' "rights." Collect (talk) 12:01, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Clearly used as an attack page. Notepad, Ctrl-C, Ctrl-V, Ctrl-S. There you go! yandman 18:05, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note. Notice of this MfD placed on RfAr Talk. --Abd (talk) 18:23, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Courtesy blank (but don't delete) - it seems to be an evidence page for a recent arbcom case. Courtesy blanking should be sufficient to answer all concerns. I find it amusing the complete disconnect between !votes on this page and Raul's page mentioned above. --B (talk) 19:20, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd consider consenting to courtesy blanking, but I'd want to see a discussion of that, specifically. Not here. --Abd (talk) 23:07, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Insisting on such a discussion makes it more difficult to believe that your intentions are in good faith. This isn't a bureaucracy. --B (talk) 00:11, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sheesh! The "discussion" could be on my Talk page or on the Talk page of User:Abd/JzG. My hesitation is that the purpose of keeping the page is for reference from places where it's been used. (and if it has been used inappropriately, those usages should be addressed directly). Blanking the page presents a problem, then for the reader following the link. Further, I don't really see the reason for blanking. It's just a pile of diffs with only a little comment, and if it is misleading in some way, that should be addressed specifically. The page is no-indexed courtesy of B, I don't have a problem with that. --Abd (talk) 05:44, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abd, you could just go ahead and unilaterally blank it. Anyone actually viewing that page already knows where the history tab is. Cla68 did much the same thing not long ago based on one single suggestion. Asking for more discussion on terms that you alone dictate is pushing it a little bit. Why not show some good faith and smooth manners? It's easy enough to change page links to &oldid links and no AC clerk in the world will prevent you doing that. How 'bout just being a nice guy? Franamax (talk) 06:13, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep on condition that Abd uses this as the basis for an RFC within 60-90 days. While I support that evidence pages (absent direct personal attacks) are fine for userspace, I don't believe in keep them around forever building up steam against someone. Guy doesn't need some
  Sword of Damocles hanging over his head. --InkSplotch (talk) 20:43, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

My guess is that this is likely to happen, but MfD's can't actually set conditions, though I suppose we could try. The MfD closes with Keep or Delete, for now, and 60-90 days is long enough that there would be no problem with renomination if it appears the file is no longer needed. The precedent, deleting a file actually used in an RfAr discussion, is pretty bad, though. All that file shows is edits to

Cold Fusion, and use of admin tools in matters related to the article. Maybe he should get a barnstar. But it seems that some want to claim that what is only a set of excerpts from Special:Contributions/JzG and his log is defamatory. I'd suggest that they consider the implications of that claim. If there is some comment on that page which is specifically an attack and not merely a fair presentation of evidence, it should be pointed out (or the file directly edited, I'll accept that if warranted, but it's my report and I'm responsible for it.) --Abd (talk) 23:07, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

The precedent, deleting a file actually used in an RfAr discussion, is pretty bad, though.

This needs addressing. RfArs allow a level of commentary on other users' motives and behaviors that is discouraged elsewhere, but tolerated in RfArs out of need. In other words, you can get away with an attack page used as evidence in an RfAr when the same page would otherwise be inappropriate, for example, linked from article talk. The "bad precedent" here, in my opinion, is suggesting that such pages are permanently immune from deletion once they been included in an RfAr, even if the RfAr is removed and declined, or tangential to the issues brought, as this one was.

In addition, your argument doesn't apply to courtesy blanking, which you've declined to do. Other options include pasting the text into you user talk page, or sandbox, or other subpage with a small explanatory note, reverting, and substituting the permanent link into the archived RfAr. In other words, there is zero reason you need an active page such as this, and it's talk page with commentary, just because you included it in an RfAr. In fact, linking to a permanent link using one of the methods is above a more accurate way of preserving an RfAr than a direct link to the latest version of page which is still being edited by you. So the whole RfAr evidence page argument is a big red herring in this MfD. Phil153 (talk) 08:20, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep on condition, same as InkSplotch above. If there is really a problem then bring it to RfC already. A lot of people don't see a problem with the evidence provided by Abd on that page, and Abd keeps linking to this page as if it was proof of something, so it's being used as an attack page. --Enric Naval (talk) 21:08, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Enric, did you look at the comments I listed in the RfAr? There are a number of editors indicating concern with respect to JzG using admin tools in relation to the article, and no evidence of this was presented except for

WP:DRV. Note that the dispute isn't clearly defined yet, and it certainly hasn't been examined by the community in any coherent way. I'm still hoping that a friend of JzG will realize that he could be headed for a fall if they don't give him some good advice. And my Talk page is open. --Abd (talk) 21:29, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Just make the RFC already --Enric Naval (talk) 22:33, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I have such a list "against" you, Iridescent. The self/user RfC I started didn't turn to your actions, and I have no opinion at all that you acted outside of the boundaries of administrative discretion, even though I think you blocked me in error. (Admins are allowed make mistakes and there is only a problem if, after the matter becomes clear, an admin insists that a bad action was correct, see the RfAr pages for Physchim62 and Tango). Note that these user space pages have proven effective in resolving some disputes; when there is an attempt to lay out evidence objectively, prior to any possibly disruptive process, users sometimes revise their opinions and seek consensus. If there is some other page where I have a "laundry list" with respect to your action, please let me know, or if there is something incorrect in one of the User:Abd/RfC pages, please point it out. (To my knowledge, none of these review or evidence pages has been deleted.) By the way, what I was trying to do when blocked was ultimately confirmed by community consensus. Jehochman, whose warning was the primary preceding action for the block, later said it was a mistake, and the admin whom I supposedly attacked is the one who later granted me rollback, saying that it was all a misunderstanding. Sometimes things are not as they appear. Did you notice, Iridescent, that the evidence in User:Abd/JzG was prepared for and presented in an RfAr? Thanks. --Abd (talk) 19:02, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's

iridescent 19:17, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Well, I thought it was ancient history, but apparently it's not, so I may extend that RfC to the block itself, it had not turned to that. Note that this RfC is only for my advice, it asks the community to advise me, and it is my behavior that is at issue; however, it could possibly determine that my behavior was not blockworthy. This, by itself, would do nothing, but it would give me a basis, then, to pursue DR over it. We could shortcircuit this, Iridescent. I only mention "a blocking administrator" and make no claim on the page that the block was improper, only the warning was considered. So how could it discuss my alleged "grudge" against you? Please redact. As to being in the RfAr, material prepared for an RfAr and cited in it is in the RfAr; the RfAr record is no longer complete without it. --Abd (talk) 20:00, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict, continuation of my previous comment above) As to my edit history, yes, when I became aware of the issues, my mainspace edits dropped dramatically; however, what I've uncovered will, in one case alone, possibly result in the creation of as many as a few hundred articles, and the addition of very useful links to several hundred as well. This takes a lot of time to prepare the way; and it's being successful, so far. Baby steps, it took quite a while to just get

DR, per edit, so I get not only fewer mainspace edits, but fewer Talk and WP space edits as well. --Abd (talk) 19:43, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

• Notice Because there are comments of interest here, I've posted a notice to User:Abd/Notices. The notice is neutral, and I have no idea who watches this page. --Abd (talk) 21:01, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment In the nomination, JzG writes, about the RfAr where the user page was cited, ...it was endorsed by every arbitrator who commented. The RfAr is archived, showing 11 arbitrators as having commented. The consensus was that ArbComm action was not required (I thought that obvious). Only three arbitrators indicated support for the ban as JzG had requested. Carcharoth, in particular, wrote quite explicitly: I'm not going to endorse the ban. I comment on this because JzG makes a big issue out of it in the nomination, and the user page has been cited in other places when he's made an issue out of that RfAr and its alleged support, and my alleged repetitive raising of rejected "grudges." --Abd (talk) 20:27, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• the user page has been cited in other places when he's made an issue out of that RfAr and its alleged support, and my alleged repetitive raising of rejected "grudges."

Please explain how this edit followed him "making an issue out of the RfAr" or grudges. The only mention of "Arbcom", "ban" or RfAr in that entire talk page at the time of your inclusion of your link is by you. Neither Guy nor anyone else ever mentioned anything of the sort anywhere on that page. This disconnect between stated purpose and actuality of use displayed in the comment above just adds to the case for deletion in my opinion. Phil153 (talk) 21:28, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for being specific, Phil,I've requested specifics from others who haven't supplied them. You are correct; the context was a possibly disruptive suggestion by JzG, questioning the notability of Martin Fleischmann. I was suggesting that his prior involvement with Cold fusion topics has not been helpful, and the subject user file is simply a record of that history, though it did, at that time, contain my conclusions as well. That's been fixed. However, my reference on that Talk page to JzG isn't important, I'll strike it. --Abd (talk) 00:30, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I couldn't delete it because there was response. --Abd (talk) 00:42, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I would accept that this page could exist in user space if there were a promise given about a specific proceeding in which Abd was going to use it, and a specific date. Otherwise, it should go. EdJohnston (talk) 23:59, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was already used. I do intent to use it, now, again, because of the filing of this MfD. However, I gain nothing by the promise of a specific date, and the project can lose, not only because it speeds up escalation of the issue to the RfC level, when it might still be resolved short of that, but because, also, a prior RfAr request becomes partly unintelligible ad interim. (That, and that only, is why I would take this to DRV if it closes Delete with the !votes expressed so far, and then to ArbComm if DRV, similarly divided, closes Delete. It's a very narrow issue, worthy of a Motion, I'd suggest. It would not be an RfAr on JzG, only on the deletion of evidence used before ArbComm without ArbComm permission.) I have a copy, and if there is further process, the information can be used again. I don't "win" with Keep, and I don't "lose" with Delete. Keep is probably less disruptive, though. --Abd (talk) 00:57, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Blank. I understand that it is already used and done with. Blanking on completion is the intent behind
  WP:UP#NOT/10. User:Abd should not be continuing to link to this stuff. This sort of stuff should not be kept in userspace as it is not the way to move forward towards harmonious and collaborative editing. No need to delete, keep it in the history in case of future need (but not for linking!). --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:43, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

It's already no-indexed, but I'd have blanked it already, because of the two requests, if it were not for this MfD (blanking is discouraged by the MfD template). Then, if it is used in an RfC (as is now intended), it can be unblanked. It could also be blanked and protected, no problem, I'd then ask for unprotection when it is used. And, in fact, the same is true if it's deleted, I'd simply be asking for undeletion instead of unprotection. Prior to clearly proper usage, I wouldn't unblank except possibly to edit it with immediate reblanking.

Did anyone think of asking me to stop linking to this file? Of blanking it directly? Of following

WP:DR by making a civil request of me, and if I refused, asking one editor to mediate, prior to starting disruptive MfD process? Looks like not. --Abd (talk) 12:20, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete, we don't allow laundry lists of grievances to hang around in userspace.
  talk) 11:54, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Stifle, what grievances? No grievance listed there, only a pile of diffs. "Grievance" would be expressed, perhaps, where the page is cited, though I don't think that way. The "laundry list of grievances" is simply History and logs, filtered for edits to Cold fusion and admin actions related to that article, with little comment. Plenty of the edits shown are just fine, likewise some of the admin actions. I think Stifle and others have confused evidence with how the evidence might be used. I haven't pinged any arbitrators on this, I will if this closes Delete. Maybe they will tell me to go fly a kite, in which case I'll definitely have more fun. --Abd (talk)

• Note. Because a major issue here has been that no RfC has been filed, I have begun preprocess. I had not intended to escalate to RfC so soon, and had requested that JzG suggest a meditator; he refused, so I was planning to request intervention, then, from another editor; my hope was to resolve the core issue, use of admin tools while involved, without RfC or RfAr, which could be quite disruptive. RfC requires another editor also attempt to resolve the dispute, and while such attempts may have existed in the past, I'd prefer that JzG have a fresh chance to reconsider. Accordingly, User:Abd/Notices describes the situation briefly and requests assistance in negotiating directly with JzG. This is, as so many have requested, preparing for RfC, while at the same time respecting WP:DR, which does not suggest a rush to escalate. I cannot promise to file an RfC because, I still hope, it will become unnecessary. --Abd (talk) 15:22, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• keep at this point, evidence for ongoing process, so I think the original problem is moot. This is not the page of someone acting out of spite, but of someone honestly and in good faith trying to make a case. DGG (talk) 23:19, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I have a concern that any RFC/U might fail to be certified. Since Abd will not take the step of opening an RfC, if all he does is make gestures toward JzG, it doesn't strike me as any meaningful form of process. EdJohnston (talk) 23:52, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In view of some of the comments above, it looks to me not unlikely that the RfC will be certified. If not, then the page can be deleted. DGG (talk) 05:56, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete If the purpose is making a case, per User:DGG, then the arbcom can still see this even if it's deleted. If the purpose is to harrass, deletion is the only option. So the donoharm choise is obviously, delete. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:36, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.