User talk:JzG/Archive 39

Happy new year!

Hope you have a great one, Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:12, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Have a great year!--MONGO 15:44, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Archimedes Plutonium

Hello JzG. You're the admin who deleted the last version of Archimedes Plutonium, mentioning BLP grounds. You converted that article to a protected redirect, but it has now been recreated as a full article. There is a discussion going on at Talk:Archimedes Plutonium about the propriety of this. If you still have BLP concerns, you may wish to comment there. EdJohnston (talk) 03:53, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

Dear JzG,

Wishing you a happy new year, and very best wishes for 2009. Whether we were friends or not in the past year, I hope 2009 will be better for us both.

Kind regards,

Majorly talk 21:05, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks, Majorly. I think we're friends, but I am always the last to know :-) Guy (Help!) 17:17, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi

Not really active at present but I came across something while looking for something else :). Given that the ones I found were "references" I felt it worth passing on to someone else! Happy new year, cheers --Herby ^{talk thyme} 13:39, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

• Holy crap. Thanks - I think. That will take a while to fix. Guy (Help!) 14:08, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
  • I've nudged a couple of others to look at it too (& I'll do a few when I can), cheers --Herby ^{talk thyme} 17:10, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

• This was a good catch, Herby - I have taken it to the meta blacklist, it's all over the projects like a rash. Guy (Help!) 17:16, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Cold Fusion

Hi, JzG, btw of this, thanks for the warning. I am going to submit the matter to it.wiki administrators. If you want to contact me please use my Talk page on it.wiki. Best regards and happy 2009. Sergio † BC™ (Write me!) 14:13, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

• Great, happy to be of service. Guy (Help!) 17:17, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

our mutual friend again

This time used 66.235.54.139 . No question that it is the same vandal as before. Did the revert and ignore, but the block requires an admin. Thanks! Collect (talk) 02:12, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Earthquake engineering

Sorry to pester, but Talk:Earthquake engineering#Situation needs the input of a cool, patient head. My own is sore from banging it against the wall for the last couple of days. Apparently we can't commit plagiarism on Wikipedia, because we're not 'authors' — we're 'Wikipedians'.

Shustov doesn't seem to see why he should fix his own copy & paste work unless someone else (me, to be specific) hunts down all his copying. Either he can't remember what he copied himself, or can't be bothered to figure it out. I'm *this* close to stripping the article back to a stub, and restoring only original content that I can verify was added by other editors. Bloody nuisance, it is. If he is who he claims to be, shouldn't he know better? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:07, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for having a look in. As I look at the rest of the article, I'm starting to wonder if all of Shustov's contributions are "good and original". There's still more plagiarized stuff that I haven't reported on the talk page. There's also quite a bit that is directly copied out of Shustov's own work. (Depending on where, or if, he's published it there probably isn't a copyright or licensing problem, but I do worry about the undue weight and conflict of interest issues.) It's very worrying, and stubbing the article – while I meant it as hyperbole before – might actually be the only way to get a 'clean' article. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:36, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

It is my strong suspicion that he is engaging in original research and novel synthesis, as well as plagiarism, but I do not know the subject well enough. Guy (Help!) 20:38, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm. Well, looking at his contributions to earthquake engineering, explosion protection, shake-table video, and the others, he certainly doesn't seem to have trouble referring to his own work in our articles.... TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:33, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Probable troll

This is a little random, but I'm coming to you because you don't put up with nonsense from disruptive editors. Would you please have a look at Mwahcysl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and his contributions? I honestly don't see any constructive edits, and while he's not a vandal per se, edits such as [1] and [2] and [3] make me question his purposes here. If you think this should be raised instead at the drama board, I'll gladly take it there. Thanks! // Chris ^{(complaints)•(contribs)} 21:51, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

On DickLyon

Hello JzG. You have been a little involved in editing the articles related to Blanchard's theory Bailey's book, etc. You likely have read what goes on between myself and DickLyon. Could you help me to resolve my apparently personal dispute with DickLyon? I know we disagree over the merger proposal. This is not about that. This is about the fact that I provide reasons for why I write what I write and he just insults me. I have never insulted him in any way.

Now I am no angel. The user Jokestress and I have mixed it up in the past. Last time out she took the fact that I was the guest of a border in the home of Dierdre Mc Closkey (You should have an idea of who that is from reading on the subject if nothing else). She wrote that I broke into her house. I threatened legal action. Yeah I sould not have done that. I believe an admin or bureaucrat totally deleted that text because I have tried to find it. I also mixed it up with the user User:AliceJMarkham she took it as an insult that I refered to him as a male. But "Alice" said on her talk page[[4]] "I am a Transgendered person. More specifically, a male who cross-dresses as a female." The last user I called female by assuming from their name and user page was MariontheLibrarian who is known now as user James cantor. I plead no contest to not being a wiki saint.

However Dick's insults feel different. Because he basically has decided he is not going to write anything and will just complain in a way that is at least impolite if not outright insulting. He may be refarining from editing the actual article due to COI. But if that's the case then how can his COI not invalidate his comments on talk pages? That's not what I am going for though.

Basically what I want is to avert this mess going to a higher level of conflict resolution. Please help. --Hfarmer (talk) 23:00, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day!

Happy First Edit Day, JzG/Archive 39, from the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day!

Willking1979 (talk) 13:47, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Please remove lenr-canr.org from the spam blacklist

JzG, please remove lenr-canr.org, added by you December 18, 2008, to the local spam blacklist. This is a library of papers and the decision to link to an individual paper, as citations, which you have made impossible by the blacklisting, is one which should be made individually, citation by citation. On the face of it, lenr-canr, as a library of papers, would be a source which we should allow as an external link; however, this is a separate matter. Your use of your administrative tools, in this case, may have been improper, you are clearly involved.

It's much simpler if you remove the site than if we go through more complex processes involving other editors. Thanks. --Abd (talk) 19:43, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

• No. It ios not a reliable source, it is polemical and worthless to Wikipedia, and it has been prolifically spammed by its owner. An absolutely open and shut case of WP:SPAM. Guy (Help!) 22:53, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

The response doesn't seem to match what I see, nor does it address the issues I've raised. Instead of what may be useless argument, you seem very convinced of your position, I gather that you are refusing to remove the listing, and consider your use of administrative tools to be appropriate, even though you may be involved.

This was an attempt to resolve a dispute by direct communication between parties. One more question, though: would you consent to the removal of the listing by another administrator, should one make that decision? I'm looking, Guy, for the simplest and least disruptive means of resolving this. --Abd (talk) 23:57, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

No, because the only rationale you have given refers to one link on one article (which might or might not justify whitelisting of that one link); the site has been spammed by its owner, and abused in sundry other ways. We use the blacklist to control link abuse, we use the whitelist to enable carefully selected links from sites whihc have been abused, where consensus is that such links are of significant value. Guy (Help!) 09:44, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

And consensus to add that site to the blacklist was achieved.... exactly when and where? It seems like a unilateral decision on your own part, without discussion. *Dan T.* (talk) 13:41, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I haven't seen a good objection to its presence on the blacklist yet. Are you denying that it's an unreliable site hosted by a fringe-theory advocate? Or are you saying that using unreliable sites hosted by fringe-theory advocates as references is a good thing?—Kww(talk) 14:17, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

One should, I suppose, apply ideological litmus tests to the webmasters of any site before allowing it to be linked? But my objection here is less to the specifics of that site or its owner than to the concept that adding things to the blacklist can be done unilaterally without discussion by one admin, while removing them or making exceptions to them requires consensus. That's a tilted playing field, and opens up the possibility of systemic bias. *Dan T.* (talk) 14:33, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Take it to RSN. If you can get people to agree it's a reliable source, JzG won't have a leg to stand on. Adding things to the spam blocklist is one of those powers that a Mediawiki admin has, and he used it. Overturning an admin action always requires a consensus that the action was improper. This isn't particularly different. It is also a case where his action was so clearly correct that you don't really stand a chance of getting it overturned, but that isn't a fault in the process, that's because of the nature of the site and the disruptive behaviour of the site owner.—Kww(talk) 14:44, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

If it was the New York Times and it was spammed by the webmaster we would still likely blacklist it. I don't think we really need any more forum shopping on this, we're only one step away from Dan resurrecting his BADSITES crusade as it is. Guy (Help!) 17:44, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

"Spammed" implies mass insertion of irrelevant or clearly inappropriate content. A few examples doesn't establish it. The blacklist is not to be used to control content; it's a time-saver for clearly inappropriate links. lenr-canr.org isn't nearly so clearly inappropriate. Frankly, it looks like site dedicated to collecting information about cold fusion, which is a highly controversial topic, not a settled one. You have made shotgun charges, Guy, without specifics. Maybe the specifics exist somewhere; lenr-canr.org should be discussed before being blacklisted. But it looks like it wasn't, not in one place, and not with any clear resolution. One thing, though, is clear, you would be one who could present evidence and arguments, but you would not be the appropriate admin to determine consensus and close the decision. You have become involved, you have taken a controversial position and are strongly advocating it. Read the Cold Fusion arbitration; I don't find a community consensus obvious there, there were editors I highly respect who were very much opposed to sanctions against Pcarbonn. ArbComm decided to topic ban him, but the reasoning behind that is far from clear: the most obvious reason would be, though, that he apparently had an agenda. That establishes nothing about the topic.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Abd (talk • contribs) 12:35, 8 January 2009

(unindent) Forum shopping? JzG, I've been trying to resolve this with the minimum possible fuss. I came to you first, once I realized the problem. You have been, I'd say, intransigent. Where would you suggest I go next, if I'm not satisfied? Is it forum shopping if I come to you, then to the specific place where the error I allege involves? Where would the next step in WP:DR take us? You are the experienced admin, I the relative newbie. In the absence of better advice, I'd say, an administrative noticeboard might be next. The issue I have raised isn't exactly whether or not lenr-canr.org should be blacklisted, it is whether or not you, with what is obviously a very strong POV regarding it, should have been the one to, on your own, blacklist it, which involves a use of your tools. There is also an issue about lenr-canr, was it "spammed" or wasn't it, but that is actually a separate issue.

I will, however, respond on one point. lenr-canr.org cannot be used as a source itself, probably. It isn't a peer-reviewed publication, it isn't a reliable source, and that has nothing to do with it being fringe. It's a private web site that archives material on a topic; you allege that this archive is biased, perhaps it is, or perhaps it isn't. (It's an archive of documents relating to cold fusion, which is a serious research topic and which remains so; however, it will, by its nature, contain many controversial documents.) However, much of the material archived is material that was independently published, material that is RS, due to its original publication or nature. It's the original publications that are RS. For anyone who wants to reference, here, one of these articles, it is conveniently available at lenr-canr.org, which facilitates reader verification. It may or may not be available elsewhere, often not, in my experience. The source in the article where I know the context was actually a paper by Fleischmann, not lenr-canr.org, which merely hosts a copy of the paper.

JzG, you are making content decisions, unilaterally, and enforcing them by the use of your tools. That's contrary to policy. Please fix it, please make this objection moot. I look here to see if you have responded, but otherwise I'm done here.--Abd (talk) 05:07, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

• No, I am not making content decisions. I blacklisted a site which was spammed by its webmaster, which contained material in violation of copyright, and which had been abused to misrepresent sources. That is all in a day's work - exactly the kinds of reasons we have a blacklist, in fact. We do not link to copies of sources on some random website just because they are there, we have to be sure that the material is not violating copyright. In this case numerous papers were from mainstream journals that do not (and believe me I have had this conversation with Reed-Elsevier, my former neighbours Taylor and Francis, Springer verlag and numerous other publishers) permit copies of their journal articles to be hosted by other websites even if the authors want to do so. The author is not even usually permitted to host them on his own site, unless special permission is gained at time of submission. This is all unambiguous stuff; WP:SPAM, WP:C and WP:RS all being violated, so the technical features were used to fix the abuse. Guy (Help!) 08:55, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

"Day's work?" If I look at the blacklist, I see many totally obvious listings. Basically, listing on the blacklist is not supposed to be controversial, it should enjoy consensus, otherwise it creates more wikidrama that is justified by the time saved. How many "spammed" insertions of the site were made? I'll research it if necessary, but it seems like a lot of work for what should be obvious: you crossed the line with the use of your tools here. You were involved, you'd made content decisions, you did not merely enforce editorial behavior policies, and your obligation was to refrain from the use of your tools. In inserting lenr-canr on the blacklist, you used your privileged access to automatically enforce and preserve your own editorial decisions.

The copyright issue is a separate one. Wikipedia should not become involved in or take positions on what may be a dispute between a publisher and an author. We don't know the content of the contract between the publisher and the author, and we are not competent to judge that. As far as I know, the project isn't in any danger of copyright violation by linking to a violating site, in any case. Has this matter (i.e., linking to an author's allegedly permitted copy of an article, in alleged violation of a contract with the publisher) been discussed and settled? Using lenr-canr is only a convenience to our readers, though, since they can find it independently, once they have the citation; I'd assume lenr-canr articles are googleable. Still, often I'm looking for a copy of a paper and I can miss a free copy somewhere, or it can take me a long time to find it. --Abd (talk) 17:46, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

No it's not. Sites have been blacklisted simply because of copyright problems. The site meets at least two blacklist criteria (spamming and copyvios) and fails at least two inclusion criteria (unreliability and falsification). I cannot imagine why we are still even having this conversation. Guy (Help!) 17:57, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I've been active on the article for a while. The lenr-canr site certainly hosts a great deal of material that only the most naive could believe is free of copyvio. Even if technically legal (and IANAL) it is simply wrong to link to these as references: we cannot trust that they are accurate renditions of the papers as the journals put them out. It also hosts a useful comprehensive bibliographic database on the topic as www.lenr-canr.org/DetailOnly.htm (its index) which is obviously fair use by definition. If we whitelisted the bibliography while blacklisting the archive of papers at lenr-canr.org/acrobat/ could we not address both problems? LeadSongDog (talk) 18:25, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

The thing is, though, if I were to offer you a resource list for a study of remote viewing and the guide was hosted on the site of one of the groups selling remote viewing, would you consider that appropriate? I wouldn't. I would not trust them to offer a full and unbiased selection. I would not offer a similar guide hosted by James Randi either, of course. Polemical, or advocacy, sites are not good sources for overview material of that nature, especially where (as with this site) there is a history of falsification, to say nothing of the site owner's promotional activity. But if the particular link that started this little teapot tempest is genuinely unique, reliable, appropriate and has consensus for inclusion as a source ins a biographical article where only properly reliable sources should be used, then I will whitelist it. I don't think is passes muster, but nobody seems to be terribly keen on discussing the merits of that link as a source, preferring to focus on reasons why we should allow links simply because "the wrong admin" blacklisted it. Guy (Help!) 19:50, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

In other words, someone who wants to edit an article and use a copy of an article on lenr-canr.org should submit the proposed edit to JzG for review and approval? Nobody has proposed, to my knowledge, usage of lenr-canr.org as a reliable source, itself, though for some purposes it might be so usable. (Sometimes advocacy sites are used to show what advocates are saying, but that would require a series of judgments.) It's not even clear to me that lenr-canr is actually an "advocacy site," as we normally would understand that term, and advocacy sites aren't generally blacklisted for that reason. Lenr-canr.org or Rothwell doesn't have a COI, technically, unless you have evidence that Rothwell is being paid. He is actually what he's claimed to be, mostly, a librarian, compiling sources on a topic. It is not "fringe science," as such, it is "minority opinion among experts" science. It's fairly clear that papers on the topic have been and are having difficulty being published in mainstream publications; as has been noted, we can't fix this, and Pcarbonn's agenda may have been inappropriate, but ArbComm did not decide that Cold fusion is "fringe science." There is a lot of research still going on, apparently, by legitimate scientists, who, in doing this, are fulfilling what the 2004 DOE report concluded: further research. That would not have been a recommendation were the field truly fringe science. I have no idea if cold fusion is actually taking place or not, but I would stand with the majority of experts in the DOE panel: something is happening that we don't understand. It might be mass hysteria, self-delusion, or it might simply be a not-understood physical phenomenon that may or may not involve fusion. We have standards for sourcing, notability, and all that. We certainly would not allow an article to be biased toward minority opinion, that's the meaning of the ArbComm finding. However, there is notable opinion that cold fusion is real, and more that the topic merits further investigation. That, we can and should report, with sources. And lenr-canr.org is a convenient repository of sources, it is mostly not a source itself, so the opinions of the webmaster actually aren't relevant. An article would cite the source, not lenr-canr.org, but then, if the source isn't available directly, but only on lenr-canr.org, we would, as others have noted, provide a link for the convenience of readers. "Copy at URL." It is this last action that you are preventing with your blacklisting. Without evidence of copyright violation, without evidence of alteration of papers, all based on irrelevancies, hence my conclusion that you are involved, you have formed an opinion, and you are prepared to be the enforcer of that opinion, controlling content. This isn't proper, Guy. Abuse of admin tools in service of an admin content opinion isn't permitted, it isn't a mere technical detail. We can get around the blacklisting. But abuse of tools, not. What comes next? --Abd (talk) 17:58, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I hear your frustration, but blacklisting the Library of Congress for exhibiting an American-centric POV might be somewhat counterproductive too. The best collections available should still be used in conjunction with other resources to avoid selection bias, particularly on controversial topics. We don't have to (and should not) accept just one.LeadSongDog (talk) 22:13, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I've looked at the site on Abd's request/. I do not consider it a pirate site, and I think most of the material on there has a good chance of being legitimate. Some of it certainly is, being PD_USGov. Much else is by various cold fusion advocates, who may well have given or obtained permission to post it there. In a case like this, I think the appropriate course is not to blacklist the site, but to watch carefully individual items.

Asa general rule, most places where journal articles are secondarily posted are at least authentic genuine copies--I have not encountered one so far that is not, so I am not concerned with that part of things. Excerpts are another matter, of course. The most frequently encountered situation is where a scientists posts copies of his papers, --for soe of which he will have permission, from the publisher, for others not--there's a good deal of evidence that faculty tend to ignore this detail--but in the last few years, almost all the major publishers have dealt with it by giving blanket permission. the more problematic case is where a faculty member posts other people's papers on a course site--in general publishers , except open access publishers, do not give such permission unless the site is restricted to those in the course. But this site is typical of a third category, where an advocacy site posts material supporting its position. Generally, the more sophisticated ones of this sort do now obtain permission, and also post a few papers of their opponents to give the appearance of objectivity. (That of course doesn't in the least mean the material is permissible for further copying, but just for linking.) I consider this site among those more sophisticated ones, which is why it should not be blacklisted.

and of course LeadSongDog is right that in each case we should find the best and freest source available. DGG (talk) 22:30, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Not all the material is with permission, some links have definitely been removed from articles as copyright violations. One link has been removed because it falsified a source. All articles in jounrals should be cited from the source, not from some spamming POV-pusher's website. This much is obvious. Guy (Help!) 20:42, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Again on Cold Fusion

Hi JzG, sorry to bother you again, but it seems we have a little problem on it.wiki. BTW of the blacklisted site, there's an user that states there's also useful material, freely released by scientists who wrote about Cold Fusion, and asked for those documents to be whitelisted. Now the question is: have en.wiki either blacklisted the whole site or left some deeplinks to some given documents in white list (In other words: what do we lose in terms of knowledge if we blacklist that site)? Thanks again for your attention. Sergio † BC™ (Write me!) 18:35, 5 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blackcat it (talk • contribs)

• Some of it is not freely released, and much of it is heavily editorialised. It fails our reliable sourcing guidelines, and I would bet even money that it it is Jed Rothwell (the site owner) who is arguing for it. Guy (Help!) 13:22, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Guy, that's an inappropriate comment, it's irrelevant who raised the issue. The use of a total advocacy site as a place to view released documents that were themselves from a reliable source is an appropriate use, provided the link is specific, i.e., just picks up the document and not the framing that may be placed by the site owner. (A more general pointing to a page that contains the document or a link to it might be proper, but is definitely more questionable.) The site might contain a *lot* of material that is inappropriate and unusable, but that should not prevent usage of what is appropriate. The needs of the project and of the readers should be paramount, and being able to read original articles serves both. Further, when the topic is the controversy, sometimes reference to advocacy sites is relevant, under some conditions, as a source that an attributed claim from a notable source was made. These are decisions, ultimately, to be made by consensus. --Abd (talk) 15:09, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

• It's not inappropriate at all. Have you any idea how many times Jed Rothwell's promotion of his fringe views and site has had to be dealt with? Guy (Help!) 09:49, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I do not know I if I really want to get involved with this issue, but it seems to me that enforcing "reliable sourcing guidelines" is a missuse of the SPAM blacklisting process. At a minimum it creates the impression that blacklisting is used to enforce a POV, or win edit wars. I hinted at the problem earlier on User:Jehochman's talk page: Misuse of spam filter to enforce POV. I did not complain to you directly, as I did not think you were a party in this debate. Anyway, this is what I said earlier:

In these two edits User JzG (talk · contribs) removed vital references from the article on Martin Fleischmann. The first was the removal of the URL-line in an well formed {{Citation}} template, the referred file being a PDF copy of a peer-reviewed paper in Physics Letters A, available on-line at a cold fusion related repository lenr-canr.org. The second was the complete removal of the reference to the original press real, on-line at newenergytimes.com. I tried to restore the link and reference, but was prevented by the spam filter. I do not know what is happening here, but I find it very fishy.

-- Petri Krohn (talk) 13:56, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Vital references? I don't think so. Not when they are published on the hack website of a fringe group. Anything truly vital will be published in, and citable from, a reliable source rather than something like lenr-canr, which has been relentlessly spammed and promoted by the site owner to the point that he is now de facto banned. Guy (Help!) 15:40, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Am I to understand from your comment, that you are personally involved in this editing dispute? -- Petri Krohn (talk) 15:50, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if routine process for challenging spam filter inclusion has been followed yet. If the sites were added by Guy, then, of course, requesting that he reverse this would be an early step. Above, there is implied such a request. It looks like Guy denied it. Okay, next step. --Abd (talk) 15:09, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Just driving by, but there are many cases where crappy sites are listed in the spam blacklist and in the XlinkxRevertBot lists just for being crappy unreliable sites, even though they are not "spammed" per se. It isn't an abuse of process, it's just a poorly named list.—Kww(talk) 16:22, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks for your attention JzG, are you going to include lenr-canr.org in meta.wikimedia's spam list too? Sergio † BC™ (Write me!) 18:19, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I've now formally requested JzG remove the site, which he added unilaterally, from the blacklist. That doesn't resolve the question and wouldn't be an acceptance by him that the site may be used, but it undoes his usage of administrative tools to support his own views (one must be an admin to edit the spam blacklist). Hopefully, he will do this, and then we can focus on content.... --Abd (talk) 19:47, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I generally would propose additions at WP:WPSPAM and let one of the regulars there add it. Jehochman ^Talk 20:36, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

The linking to lenr-canr.org certainly fits the profile at WP:WPSPAM. Is there any admin that would have done anything different?LeadSongDog (talk) 21:04, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

No, any admin would have done the same. Jed Rothwell was actively spamming his site as part of his ongoing campaign of disruption and POV-pushing, I did exactly what I would do (and have done) in any number of similar cases. Handling linkspam is one of my most consistent long-term activities on Wikipedia, and I am also a meta admin for the same reason. In the case of Fleischmann, he has over 14,000 hits on Google Scholar, it is unlikely to the point of implausibility tat any genuinely vital content would be surceable solely from a site so heavily spammed by its owner, and so heavily skewed towards advocacy of a fringe POV. On WP:BLP articles in particular we should take good care to use only reputable sources; lenr-canr is not one. One of Rothwell's links to it as the "citation" for the DoE review of cold fusion turned out to be a heavily editorialised version. As a source it is untrustworthy, but that is not the reason for the blacklisting, that is due to Rothwell's long-term spamming and disruption. Abd should note that all actions, editorial, administrative or otherwise, are unilateral, that is the whole point of having an account - the actions one takes are associated with one's account, end of. The addition was listed for review on the blacklist talk page at the time, but we do not sit around waiting for vandals to vandalise a bit more while we wait for someone to wander by and express an opinion. Guy (Help!) 22:59, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Your point is clear Guy, but I wonder whether you are going to add the site to wikimedia's blacklist. Sergio † BC™ (Write me!) 22:07, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

JzG's multiple roles

From your comment above and your similar comment at Talk:Martin Fleischmann, I can see that you (User:JzG) are involved in this issue in at least three different roles:

1. You are actively involved in a content dispute that is the focus of two resent arbitration cases: You offer your expert opinion on the 2004 DoE cold fusion review, you call your content opponents "Rothwell and his friends" and accuse them of advocating a fringe POV.
2. As a "spam expert" you offer your opinion on "long-term spamming and disruption" that you claim is happening here.
3. As a mediawiki administrator one of your "most consistent long-term activities on Wikipedia" has been "handling linkspam".

I do not think you should act in more than one of these roles at the same time.

As to the dispute itself: What I see happening here is an attempt by a group of Wikipedians to enforce a scientific point-of-view on fringe science and pseudoscience subjects. This is against Wikipedia's fundamental principle of neutral point-of-view. You call lenr-canr.org, or more precisely the peer-reviewed publications stored there, as "untrustworthy". I undertand this to mean that they are untrustworthy because they present a scientific point of view that differs from mainstream science. On Wikipedia POV does not equal unreliability. After all, we have plenty of articles on fiction, even religion! -- Petri Krohn (talk) 00:46, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

• I am not "actively involved" in anything. All I ever did on that article was try to enforce NPOV. As the arbitration case clearly showed, I was absolutely right, Pcarbonn was trying to skew content to reflect a fringe POV. It is a shame I did not have more time to devote to preventing this at the time, it would have saved a titanic amount of wasted effort. The point of view that you describe as the "scientific point of view" is the neutral point of view, as per the arbitration case. Where a subject is scientific, we reflect the dominant view of the scientific community, which is generally pretty good at self-policing. Again, read the arbitration case: the fringe advocate Pcarbonn was banned, not the editors who tried to restore the article to compliance with policy. I am often guilty of heavy-handedness in dealing with such disputes, but I am not an involved party in the way you describe, because I was not active on the articles prior to the problem being flagged as needing admin intervention. There is no possible doubt that the advocates of links to that site were "Rothwell and his friends" - Rothwell signed most of his talk page posts as Jed Rothwell of LENR-CANR and Rothwell has made editorial comment in support of Pcarbonn, with whom he has co-authored a Knol which repeats the POV that we are now removing from the article following Pcarbonn's censure. Wikipeida was being abused by a small group of fringe advocates to promote a fringe POV, this is absolutely and unequivocally true. The site in question was a part of that, and was extensively promoted by its owner, and hosts material which does not demonstrate copyright compliance, and hosts material which has been shown to be outright falsified. We don't link to sites like that - aspecially as a source for heaven's sake! Guy (Help!) 09:24, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

"Enforcing NPOV" is making content decisions. The arbitration case isn't as clear as you seem to think. For example:

2) Some evidence has been presented of problematic editing by users including Pcarbonn and ScienceApologist (talk · contribs) on the Cold fusion article and related pages, including some edit warring and minor instances of incivility. However, the vast majority of the evidence presented related to questions (and disputes as to those questions) about the reliability of particular sources and the relative weight to be associated with various points of view, content questions which cannot be resolved by the Committee. Passed 8 to 0, 21:38, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

The "advocates" of content are irrelevant when it comes to judging content. Content contributed by a banned editor can be used, if a not-blocked editor supports it -- and then it is subject to the same consensus process as all other content. When the scientific community is not very substantially united, where controversy exists within it, we cannot enforce a mere "majority view" against the minority. Cold fusion isn't clearly fringe; it's been widely rejected, but there continues to be serious research and qualified scientists who consider it worthy of further investigation, and recent publication. I'm not up on the recent activity in the field, I followed it closely almost twenty years ago; I was surprised, in fact, to find how much serious interest remains. When a matter is settled, you don't have one-third of a DOE review panel thinking further investigation is useful.

Sure, you became involved through a request for admin intervention, but you did this by making content decisions, deciding what was NPOV and what was not, and enforcing them. At that point you lost your neutrality. You make many charges against lenr-canr.org, and many irrelevant charges against Pcarbonn, but have presented very little evidence about the web site itself. I'm not asking for a tome, but: "material which has been shown to be outright falisifed," for example. I've seen vague charges of this elsewhere. An example? The promotion is irrelevant to the needs of the project. "Promoting" a site -- i.e., mentioning it or suggesting its use -- on a Talk page isn't contrary to our policy at all, if the site is reasonably relevant. --Abd (talk) 17:26, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Look at that RFAR. Pcarbonn came along to reshape a Wikipedia article to better reflect his POV. Some Wikipedians tried to resist him, in ways that were more or less appropriate, but failed. When the arbitrators reviewed the case they found that Pcarbonn's editing was biased and agenda-driven - it was characterised by abuse of sources including sources hosted at lenr-canr. Jed Rothwell is worse than Pcarbonn, a lot worse, but was not listed as a party because his involvement is essentially restricted to trolling the talk page. Guy (Help!) 18:00, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I've looked. Carefully. Pcarbonn was sanctioned because he had an agenda, and he saw Wikipedia as a battleground. However, his agenda may have been to restore or establish NPOV in the articles. Certainly that's how he saw it. That the editing was biased? I don't see that, except, of course, when you find an article which is POV in one direction, and you attempt to restore balance, this can easily be seen as promoting an opposing POV. The finding is at [5]. In that finding, there is reference to the AN discussion that led to the RfAr. That discussion was inconclusive. And, in fact, the general sense was that PCarbonn was a "civil POV pusher," on the one hand, or an editor writing good NPOV articles, on the other, even if he has an agenda. The finding was proposed by Flonight, at [6]. There was remarkably little discussion. It didn't find biased editing. That you think it did, to me, shows bias. Your description of lenr-canr.org shows bias. I asked DGG to look into this because he's a librarian, and because I thought he'd be careful. He suggested that lenr-canr.org should not be blacklisted, as a result.

Lenr-canr.org is a library of sources, it isn't a source itself (for most of what it hosts). Hence "abuse of sources" isn't relevant, and, even though that wasn't a finding, it wouldn't matter if it was. We don't impeach sources because someone abuses them. "Trolling talk pages" is an uncivil expression of a POV. Editors with a COI are *asked* to comment on Talk pages, and, provided they do so in a civil manner, and absent some evidence of abuse, it seems that Jed Rothwell was doing what he's supposed to do. JzG, please recuse yourself from use of tools, here, please either stand aside (by allowing unlisting by another admin, if another so chooses) or undo your action and let others make a decision after reviewing evidence and discussion. Otherwise, I imagine, this will escalate, with more editors and administrators becoming involved. I'm still discussing this here because I hold hope that you will recognize the problem with your action, not because I want to waste your time and my own. This discussion can stop anytime you ask for that. --Abd (talk) 17:34, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Blanchard, Bailey, and Lawrence theory controversy

An article that you have been involved in editing, Blanchard, Bailey, and Lawrence theory controversy, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blanchard, Bailey, and Lawrence theory controversy. Thank you. Hfarmer (talk) 17:45, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing your thoughts on this deletion nomination. I recommend avoiding engaging WhatamIdoing in debate as much as possible, as it will usually devolve into what a bad person I am within a few posts. That editor gets extremely worked up about this topic and can barely control herself, seeking to extort some sort of apology or otherwise punish me for some off-wiki trolling six years ago (which apparently worked better than I could have ever imagined at the time). While she's always good for a smile, she can be a bit of a time sink. Same with Hfarmer. Happy 2009! Jokestress (talk) 00:33, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Yet more on C.F.

Does this sound familiar? I wanted to include "lenr-canr.org" under "Gnome-Spotters' Review" link, but unfortunately it is protected so I can't use it even for sarcasm. And yes, the whole thing is sarcasm, by the way. -- Ekjon Lok (talk) 02:10, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Your edits at Transnational Association of Christian Colleges and Schools

I noticed your edits in support of critiques at the Talk:Transnational Association of Christian Colleges and Schools. A editor for the last two years (but has a under 50 edits) has been aggressively reverting articles (including TRACS), and libeling editors and people cited in the article.

Please review the edits and remarks (on his and article talk pages) Gromit7859 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Tgreach (talk) 03:19, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Hey Guy..

Regarding the Laura Didio redirect issue you commented at DRV on, I've posted a quick request for clarification at WP:RfArb. Like to see what you think. SirFozzie (talk) 00:33, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

User talk:FFN001

Hey, please see my comment in regards to this users block. As I am not fully aware of the situation, your comments are appreciated. Cheers, Tiptoety ^talk 06:05, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Exopolitics (Institute)

Hi. As you commented on the AFD for the page Exopolitics Institute, you may want to comment on the AFD of the successor article, Exopolitics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Thanks, Sceptre ^(talk) 17:22, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

ColScott's IP

Hey Guy, I think you just conflicted me on blocking the 12.x.x.x IP that's been playing silly games. I don't think a one week tariff is enough since the IP's static and has been used abusively since August 2007; do you have any objection with me reinstating my original long block? — east718 | talk | 23:04, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

None whatsoever. I don't think it's Mr Murphy himself, I think he is wiser than that. At least I hope so. Guy (Help!) 23:07, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

ok, I'm bumping it back up. Thanks for your time. — east718 | talk | 23:09, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Dan Schneider again

Welcome back.

Looks like we once again have sockpuppets spamming links to Dan Schneider's articles. Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#Dan_Schneider_inserting_spam_links_again. I noticed you helped with this problem the last time it occurred, and would like your opinion on how to proceed. --Ronz (talk) 23:16, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Blacklisted domains

Hi JzG, a couple of the domains you blacklisted that relate to cold fusion have come up for discussion. Abd and I share a concern. Without getting into the specific merits (or lack thereof) regarding the merits of those sites' POV, or their reliability as sources, etc., it appears--Abd knows more about the details than I do--that you had a role in the content dispute itself, as well as acting in an administrative capacity. It's important to maintain a separation of function between admin and editorial roles. I was wondering what you have to say about the matter, and whether you see the perspective that causes our concerns.

As you may know, I recently undertook mentorship of ScienceApologist. So people have started approaching me who've been active in the subjects where he tends to edit. It's a lot of learning curve to take up in a short time. Best regards and looking forward to your reply, Durova^Charge! 06:28, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

• Christ on a bike. The problems with lenr-canr.org are:

• Extensive promotion by site owner Jed Rothwell
• Use of copyright material without proof of release (e.g. full text of journal articles published by Elsevier, and available from Elsevier for over $30
• Use of at least one source which was not as described - in fact, an extensive polemic followed by the source it purported to be.
• Claimed to be a reference or library, but turns out to include polemical content such as a rant on "DOE LIES".

So, it fails as a reliable source, fails as a repository (because the copyright status is questionable and because Rothwell is disingenuous about the site hosting only reliable peer-reviewed material; it also includes his and his friends' polemic against the Nasty mean Establishment that won't drink their cold fusion kool-aid), fails as a source of original content because it is self-published, and ultimately - and I am getting tired of saying this -we should be using the Digital Object Identifier system, not linking to fringe advocacy sites. It seems that Abd is very determined to have links to this site, and it is not at all clear to me why that would be. If it was proposed as a source even in the absence of blacklisting there would be substantial opposition to its use. Added to that, we have a significant problem with the bias identified at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Cold fusion being evident on numerous other language projects, with, in some cases, horribly biased articles sourced almost entirely form lenr-canr, whether or not the source was available elsewhere. Jed Rothwell compares his site to Amazon. It's more like lulu.com, but in any case we don't ink to Amazon, we use ISBN magic links. Much has been made of supposed conflict of interest on my part, but this seems to be a smokescreen to obscure persistent promotion by Jed Rothwell, consistent problems with the material linked, numerous identified issues with questionable copyright, and at least one case of outright falsification. Just how crap and abusive does linking have to be before some people will accept that it should simply be stopped? Guy (Help!) 15:14, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree that these sites are probably not appropriate references or external links for Wikipedia. However, that does not necessarily mean they are spam, nor does it immediately follow that they should be blacklisted. I think it would be best practice to remove them from the blacklist, without prejudice, and then file a blacklisting request with WP:WPSPAM and let the editors there make a decision. Jehochman ^Talk 15:19, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, JzG, it was the owner of newenergytimes.com who contacted me. Now as I articulated before, the relative merits of either site (or lack thereof) regarding its POV or reliability is not at issue in this query; it's the division between editorial involvement and administrative action. Do you have a response regarding that separation and your interpretation as it applies to this situation? Durova^Charge! 15:58, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

• The problems are problems of abuse. Who is the owner of NET? We know the owner of lenr-canr, Jed Rothwell, and we know that he, Pierre Carbonnel and Edmund Storms are a kind of unholy Trinity whose purpose is to change Wikipedia to influence public opinion towards their own agenda. We also know that Rothwell has promoted his site on Wikipedia pretty much since arrival, and that the site includes copyright violaitons and has been used to falsify sources. As far as I am concerned, there is no content for which that could ever be a reliable source. NET, too, looks like a site where links are placed solely for purposes of fringe advocacy - I have trouble considering the two separately, considering the overlap in the way they have been used to try to twist articles on many projects. Guy (Help!) 09:03, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

One for you

Link. Maybe we could migrate this to OTRS-Wiki. Daniel (talk) 00:53, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

• That one is beyond help :-( Thanks Guy (Help!) 08:59, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

recent Tweety21 activity

She's still attempting to edit Wikipedia articles, spamming her own MySpace fanpages into articles.

• 30 Nov — 65.119.181.165 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) — adds a link to a MySpace fanpage for Jordan Galland's band Dopo Yume. The fanpage was started by (according the the user's MySpace page) a female from Ontario, Canada, who likes Jordan Galland, Domino, Mark Ronson, and Sean Lennon's film Friendly Fire (all pages that Tweety21 edited heavily). — diff
• 30 Nov — Devonfan (talk · contribs) — adds a link (and replaces it when removed) to a Devon Aoki MySpace fanpage ("location: London, Ontario"), started by the same user as the Dopo Yume fanpage above — diff, diff
• 30 Nov – 7 Dec — 65.119.181.165 — replaces the removed Dopo Yume fanpage link and blanks IP's own talk page repeatedly (see contribs for diffs)
• 1 Dec — 205.211.141.243 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) — replaces the link to the Devon Aoki fanpage — diff
• 11 Dec — 198.96.80.15 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) — Vandalizes the open Tweety21/Devonfan checkuser request (and the archived cases, too) with typically Tweety edit summaries — diff, diff

All IPs were blocked; the 65 IP's block just expired and has been back blanking its talk page. Precious Roy (talk) 15:16, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

• Wellt hat obviusly worked brilliantly, as those MySpace accounts are suspended! Seriously, this person is beyond help, WP:RBI is the best solution. The number of emails we have had to OTRS is quite ridiculous. Well done for watching and doing the cleanup work. Guy (Help!) 16:24, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

RFC

Regarding your comment there, thought I'd add this as an aside. As a college senior I was an officer of a coeducational fraternity. About a month into classes I was shocked to discover that a fellow whom I thought was a sophomore in engineering had actually flunked out the previous spring. When I found out the fraternity president had rented a room to him anyway, my first reaction was to suppose in disgust that she had done so entirely on her own steam and against all rules. Then she pointed out to me that according to our bylaws, if a majority of officers approved a decision the remainder didn't actually have to be notified. I had been thousands of miles away on the other side of the country when the decision came up, and they already had quorum without me. If the Internet had existed then, my first post upon discovering the developments might have looked something like Kirill's. Not exactly 'silence implies consent', if the analogous problem had occurred on-wiki and our little fraternity's president had posted first. This is one reason I haven't entered the dialog with assumptions: did once in wiki-space, have endeavored to learn from the mistake. Durova^Charge! 02:27, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom

I'm not very familiar with ArbCom rules, but I'm not sure that you're supposed to make a statement unless you intend to become part of the case. Your comment sounded to me more like what an RfC/U would call an "outside view", and I have the impression that ArbCom saves that stage of things for after a case is accepted. If you didn't mean to add yourself to the list of involved users, then perhaps your comment should be saved for a later time (assuming that ArbCom actually takes on the case, which seems doubtful at the moment). WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:27, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Anybody, party or not, can make a statement at WP:RFAR on new requests. See {{ArbComOpenedParty}} and {{ArbComOpenedComment}}, which are used for people who made statements when a case is opened, divided for those who are parties and those who aren't. Daniel (talk) 11:49, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Guy, I was confused by your statement, too. You included your opinion that "it may be that Dicklyon will be restricted or banned through community consensus before any such resolution takes place - his editing is certainly problematic and shows much evidence of bringing personal vendettas to Wikipedia." I'm actually quite perplexed at this coming from a user that I don't recall interacting with; I assume it's a genuine impression that you've gotten from observing me in the sexology disputes, since outside that area I have a mostly pretty clean image (OK, not with ScienceApologist either). So I wonder if you can tell me how I've come across or why you have the impression of a "personal vendetta"; or how my editing is "problematic"; I see my work in these disputes as primarily defensive against BLP violations. How does it look to you? Dicklyon (talk) 06:13, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Confused??

I recieved the following message on my talk page: Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments, as you did at User talk:JzG, is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. You restored content on User talk:JzG that he had archived or removed, or made other changes to talk edits not your own. That's improper. If you have a comment to make to JzG, you should make it directly; you can also refer to prior content using a reference to the topic from an historical page. If you need assistance, ask for help, I'd help if I have time, but what you did could result in a block. Please respect the right of editors to control content on their own Talk page. Abd (talk) 04:46, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

However I have no idea what I was meant to have done The only thing I am aware of having done is to make the following comment: This is quite disgusting to see such blatant abuse of power go on, clearly he has obtained permission and clearly the articles are worthy of access. You know very well this is not why blacklists were created.Aether22 (talk) 02:50, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Now I may be in breach of civility but that's the only change I have consciously made. However as I now don't see that discussion which I contributed to on the talk page I guess that means I did somehow unknowingly screw up, I guess I much have come to an archived version of the page unaware and left a comment thereby reverting the page?

Or is what I am meant to have done something different?

So apologies for whatever I did. Aether22 (talk) 06:25, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

As you can tell, I issued that warning and was the one who reverted your edits. Your comment wasn't the only change you made, Aether22. Your objection to JzG's behavior may be proper, though JzG has already abundantly responded, here, to the same claims made by myself, and elsewhere by others, so my own conclusion has been that continued belaboring of the issue here would be harassment. It seems you saw a "permanent link" to that section, posted elsewhere, and responded to it, rather than to the current version. Before you saved this, you were warned by the software that your edit would remove all changes made since your edit, which is what it did. Durova's comment, for example, at the end, was removed. Simple mistake, nobody is yelling at you, you almost certainly didn't realize what you were doing, and, in the end, no harm done but a little fuss. But: don't do it again. I recommend two things: look at "show preview" and look at "show changes" if a preview covers more than just a narrow section, and, if it is more complicated than you expected, don't save it! Rather, copy your new text into your clipboard, go back to the discussion page, or whatever, and start over. Pay attention to screen messages. When I left you the warning, I didn't realize the implications of the nature of your edit, and I assumed, wrongly, that you had deliberately restored the thread so that you could respond to it. And, JzG, sorry for the interruption, back to the regularly scheduled programming. --Abd (talk) 15:21, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

No problem, I assumed it was just an edit conflict type situation. Guy (Help!) 16:29, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

By the way, Aether22 was just blocked for a week, totally unrelated issues. The summary: he was blocked a week or so ago for edit warring on Urination, which he'd done. He'd done three reverts, was warned about 3RR, then "logged out" and made two more. He claims it was inadvertent, but, given the mess he made here, a newbie mistake, he could have been autologged out, happens to me from time to time. I haven't checked, but he might have overlooked the 3RR warning. A sock report was filed over this, but, in fact, the IP editor self-identified, so sock puppetry really wasn't an offense, the offense was edit warring. 24-hour block. Now, this time, he was blocked for what may have been a single restoration of the image (???) he'd been trying to insert before. However, by this time, it appears that the image had consensus. But he was becoming uncivil as well. It was really newbie stuff, newcomer gets idea that what he's doing is consistent with policy and so insists on it. I was about to intervene with the blocking admin, but then saw that it was more or less justified, but then ... complicated, possibly excessive. I like to stick with fairly simple stuff and I've gotta take care of some business. Would you mind looking at it if you have time? Thanks. --Abd (talk) 17:43, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I checked the contributions and concluded that they were likely on a fast-track to outer darkness anyway. No matter. Guy (Help!) 17:58, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for looking, anyway. --Abd (talk) 02:16, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

You may be interested in this discussion about changing the name of AfDs

I message you because of your suggestion here: Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion/Archive_44#Fixing_AfD:_step_2

An ongoing discussion is going on here: AFDiscussion, in section 4, we are discussing your name change idea. travb (talk) 19:39, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

User:JeanandJane

This user you blocked was unblocked without notifying you. Extending the courtesy. --Stephen 23:52, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Recall proposals

I've responded to your comment at WP:AN - before dismissing this based on previous experience, I would ask you to take a look at the proposal, as there are precautions in there to prevent the rampant abuse you're suggesting will happen. I know as well as you that an unchecked process will result in that, however this should not allow that to occur. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 22:41, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Inspiration

One of your comments inspired one of these, just thought you might be amused.--Tznkai (talk) 18:42, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Could you check into one of your blocks, perchance?

This user here: User talk:Pr D Phillip was blocked for abusing multiple accounts, and yet I don't see a list of those accounts. He claims that after his final warning, he had stopped socking, and that your later block was done with no intevening bad behavior by him. I have no evidence to decide either way. Could you perchance look into this, and report the socks he created that led to his indefinite block? Thanks a bunch! --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:29, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

• Disruptive WP:SPA and multiple account abuse. But if you think you can control the problem you are welcome to unblock, the main problem was a lack of any willingness to acknowledge that it might be him that was wrong and not everybody else involved. Guy (Help!) 15:41, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

• • I have no opinion one way or the other. I was merely forwarding to you for additional input. I have no desire to mentor or monitor this user in any way. If you can categorically state that you do not support an unblock at this time, I will decline his request. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 16:03, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

• I'd be unwilling to block without a mentor or other helpful Wiki-guide, due to past nonsense. Guy (Help!) 20:48, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello. Its Pr D Philip here. Ive temporarily logged out, to be able to reply to this as none of you are contactable directly by email. And i dont know what else to do, as I'd like to continue using my username. You say you would not be willing to unblock due to past nonsense, but since a previous administator who is already dealing with this issued a "final warning" I had not made *any* posts whatsoever, and had not been reffered for any futher alledged sockpuppeting, so your indefinate ban applies at a later date doesnt make sense. You also say you wouldnt be willing to unblock unless someoe can watch over my future posts - well there was already an administator doing just that - the admimistrator who issed the original "final warning" -which through evidence shows had already been heeded. 90.194.162.171 (talk) 22:04, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

• Except that I am contactable by email. Guy (Help!) 22:33, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Where abouts is your email address located? I read through ages about administrators blocking people, and it said you should contact them by email, and that their contact email is on their user page to the left if available. I cannot find any. Also, am I to just re-post what I have written above to your email address? 90.194.162.171 (talk) 22:52, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

On the left part of the page, look for a link called "E-mail this user" and click on it. That form sends a email to the address that is sent on the user's preferences, it's done that way for privacy reasons so the user's address is not publically viewable. --Enric Naval (talk) 14:21, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Enric Naval. I have looked on the left hand side and there is no link saying "email this user". Even when logging in this link is not available. This is why I have had to log out to be able to speak up on my behalf. I just want to get on with making contributions. I was originally accused of two suspected sockpuppets, and given a final warning by a moderator. I made no posts after this warning at all and no intervening bad behavior by me, but still a diferent administator has just decided to ban me anyway, meaning I am stuck for ever unable to make posts ever again. I have spent hours reading about blocks, and sockpuppets, and a month waiting to be able to make posts again. 90.194.162.171 (talk) 15:27, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure, but I think you have to be logged in to see that link. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:33, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. i got it sorted! :-) i confirmed my email address, and was able to send an email. I've done that but no reply, but im going to assume good faith and wait some more - other than that I dont know what to do. If i dont do anything, i'm banned for the rest of my life. Following procedures doesnt seem to be getting me any where tho, its been over a month now :-( Any suggestions from those who have responded above to help? 90.194.162.180 (talk) 03:18, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

WP:FANSITE redirect

I've done a little research on your question in WP:EXTERNAL [7]: the redirect itself was editor TheBlazikenMaster, who possibly acted improperly. But I can't get any further investigating. Maybe you know a way to find the original WP:FANSITE page, if there was one? Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 16:55, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks for that bit of digging. Guy (Help!) 20:47, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
  • It's now number 11 at WP:EL -- see the talk page there for a discussion of the missing link. dougweller (talk) 07:16, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

• Good news. I am not sure when it went, or even if it went, but it's obviously needed. Guy (Help!) 13:16, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

"and that any changes in the recreated page do not address the reasons for which the material was deleted."

Thus G4 did not apply to My Life Would Suck Without You, as crystall ball had been addressed, as had other N issues. Aboutmovies (talk) 21:34, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

• Do you have any idea how pissed off poeple get playing whack-a-mole with rightfully deleted articles on things whose fans then keep recreating them with a tiny bit more every time and the repeated assertion that now it's good enough? Take a sourced rewrite to WP:DRV. If you want the content userfied so you can do that, then ask any admin (including me) but don't simply ignore results you don't like, that type of anarchy causes far too much friction especially in areas like this where absurdly promotional content aimed at spreading the word is a long-standing problem. Guy (Help!) 21:38, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Expanding on Aboutmovies comment, consensus was hardly reached in the original AFD discussion. jenuk1985 (talk) 21:42, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Which is what WP:DRV is for. Sometimes process is your friend. Guy (Help!) 21:43, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry you feel the article needed to be deleted. I truly did not mean to ruffle any feathers. I will take a look at DRV, as required. I'm sure the article will return in one form another by the end of the week. Thanks, and best wishes! -Whataworld06 (talk) 21:45, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Until 1 hour ago I was uninvolved in this entire process, so there was no ignoring of any results by me. But thanks for the AGF and now tying this up via DRV for what was done in the proper order as DRV says (be bold and re-create). Aboutmovies (talk) 21:57, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I have created the DRV, but its worth noting that as part of that process it suggests contacting the admin concerned, which I did, but the admin concerned did not want to enter into any form of discussions, instead resorting to swearing (in the comment before mine), and what could be constituted as a personal attack. jenuk1985 (talk) 21:58, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

The thing is, if you follow process, you will have fewer arguments. This has been deleted a lot of times now, so it makes sense to do it the right way because then there will be less argument. Guy (Help!) 22:19, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

reply

I suggest that this comment is a lapse from the principle of discussing the issues, not personalities. Geo Swan (talk) 23:26, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

• Maybe. But maybe not. They seem to want Wikipedia to be a directory of Gitmo detainees, Gitmo detainees' court cases, Gitmo detainees' left shoes and so on. Guy (Help!) 13:15, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Rona Aybay

Hi there JzG. I have no affiliation at all to Rona Aybay and came across the article and cleaned it up and categorized as part of the uncategorized task force. I think being a judge of a notable human rights tribunal (Human Rights Chamber for Bosnia and Herzegovina) is enough of an establishment of notability to survive an A7. That court has its own article and two of its members have articles. Can you please restore and if you feel you must, start an Afd? Scarykitty (talk) 00:49, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

• You are welcome to take the article and move it back yourself or rewrite if you like, it is just not the kind of article that Ronaaybay (talk · contribs) should be writing - that's either WP:AUTO or a WP:USERNAME violation. Guy (Help!) 10:49, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

COA article and blocking

Hello. Since you have suggested a block if I make further edits, I would appreciate if you would respond to the questions I asked you on my talk page, and the points I made on the incident report. Thank you. --Elplatt (talk) 16:05, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

• Actually I said that you may be blocked if you resume edit-warring. This is perfectly normal and nothing to do with the article in question. Guy (Help!) 16:37, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Condensed matter nuclear science

Hi Guy, User:Abd, who I know you've had some recent conflict with on cold fusion-related stuff, has asked me to restore (or provide him with the content of) Talk:Condensed matter nuclear science, which you deleted. I see the article itself was redirected, and I have no doubt that the redirection was appropriate (having cursorily followed the cold fusion Arb Comm case, I can say with some confidence that I'd side with you and SA on cold fusion-related content disputes roughly ten times out of ten), but I admit that I'm foggy on exactly why the associated talk page needed to be nuked. Would you object to my restoring it? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 02:51, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

• I would not support the undeletion of any content related to the promotion of this fringe field, but I would suggest that you ask some people whose good faith is somewhat less bruised on this one. Guy (Help!) 13:14, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

We've had disagreement, to be sure, and my opinion is that JzG has used his admin tools in conflict of interest, and I've expressed this (beginning with asking him to reverse one of his actions) but I have never impugned JzG's good faith, I see no evidence that his intention is anything other than the welfare of the project as he sees it. What he's done in this case is to delete, without any necessity, Talk discussions that may be useful to others. The article is not deleted, it's been redirected. Condensed matter nuclear science is a general field, and is only partially related to cold fusion, which is a term that is largely rejected; majority opinion within the field seems to be that (1) something is going on that isn't understood, (2) it's possibly nuclear in nature, and (3) it isn't "fusion." Keeping the encyclopedia focused on what was really an old error and old history-of-science issue is essentially forcing a POV. That is, there are peer-reviewed articles being published on condensed matter nuclear science, which is a general field which includes low energy nuclear reactions. By redirecting CMNS to the Cold fusion article, we are enforcing a point of view that all this is "fringe" and "rejected." "Cold fusion" is rejected, even within the CMNS field.

There is in fact no scientific consensus that this field is fringe and not worthy of research, there is the opposite. There is a general attitude among many scientists (quite possibly the majority) that cold fusion is rejected, "junk science," "fringe," and worse, but those who have actually studied the research, and especially the later research, not just the 1989 reports and conclusions, seem to, by a majority, consider the field worthy of further research to discover the cause of anomalous results. Now, my own opinion: we don't know bleep about condensed matter nuclear science. Most nuclear science was based on the study of nuclei either in free environments, or as if they were free, i.e., the environment they were in wasn't relevant, and it was assumed that it was irrelevant, and there was little or no evidence that it was relevant. Is it irrelevant? The hypothesis that it is lasted so long and was so unchallenged that it came to be considered a fact, so much so that our ability to even imagine something otherwise was weak. Is it a fact? Well, there are now possible counterexamples, but, because of association with the whole cold fusion debacle, it is, quite clearly, very difficult to get the kind of vigorous debate, attempted replication of experiments by critics, etc., that would normally happen. Instead, the continuing researchers only debate within their field, for the most part, and must depend on each other for skeptical review, and are then criticized from outside for a lack of critical review! (Even though there is plenty of skepticism, actually, within the field, some of the researchers -- not all -- are very cautious.) Pcarbonn wasn't topic banned for promoting a fringe POV, he was actually banned, as I read WP:Requests for arbitration/Cold fusion for having proclaimed, outside, an agenda to, as he would say, restore NPOV to Wikipedia on the topic. I.e., the violation was of WP:BATTLE, not anything to do with fringe as such. JzG has taken this as a call to remove all traces of "fringe advocacy," as he sees it, from Wikipedia. He's used the blacklist, he's blocked users, he's deleted pages, such as the subject page here. I don't know what else, this is just what I've noticed casually. --Abd (talk) 15:22, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I suggest you read up on the definition of conflict of interest. I have no vested interest here, other than in Wikipedia's core policies as a vested contributor. We should avoid careless use of these phrases, as it makes it less easy to understand what is going on. A conflict of interest arises from, say, a webmaster promoting his own website, or someone active in a field of research (as a scientist or as a publisher) promoting funding of that field. A Wikipedia sysop removing links to unreliable sources is not a conflict of interest. It may fail the "uninvolved" test, but that is a different matter. Your assertion that Pcarbonn's problem is purely that of bringing a battle to Wikipedia is at odds with the evidence provided in the arbitration case. If he had not been promoting a fringe POV then I think it is unlikely there would have been any arbitration case. The consensus as represented by mainstream publications is that this is a pariah field. You can dress that up in whatever flowery language you like, it won't change the fact that it has on real currency outside of a small and dedicate group of proponents. I have no opinion on whether they are right or not, but I do have a very firm opinion on whether they may use Wikipedia to reshape the picture of scientific opinion as they wish it to be rather than as it is. 17:13, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't referring to formal COI on a topic caused by outside "vested interests," but the kind that suggests that administrators involved in editing an article not use their administrative tools, absent emergencies, to enforce their preferred edits or POV. I.e., JzG was "involved." So I apologize for my unwikilawyerly failure to use the precise term. I surely hope I don't have to compile the evidence of the involvement, but it's easy to find, and it goes much deeper than removing a few suspect links! The arguments about fringe here are incorrect, likewise his judgment of the ArbComm case, but that's moot on the issue here. I see no argument here that suggests deletion of that Talk page. --Abd (talk) 04:54, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough, but I would assert that I am not really involved ont hat article, other than as a janitor enforcing policy. One of the great ploys of civil POV-pushers (not accusing you here, but others) is to assert that every admin who takes any action in respect of a conflict is then involved or conflicted and can't take action; I think you'll find if hyou look in detail that I have very little involvement other than trying to push back against the egregious POV-pushing of Pcarbonn, and there is no doubt that this is exactly what it was: POV-pushing. And yes, the arguments about fringe are precisely correct. Read Physics Today and you will find that out. Of course, Pcarbonn fought tooth and nail not to have that commentary included, or any other commentary which reveals this to be a fringe field, but it is a fringe field, due to the highly public controversy over the Fleischmann-Pons experiment and its premature publication. I have a close friend who is a professor of electrochemistry at a British university, knows Fleischmann and Pons, was working in Fleischmann's labs at the time of the original publication, and took some part in the experiments. I rely on his judgement, not my own. His view was (and this appears to be endorsed by the DoE review panel) that there is something going on but that they have pretty much comprehensively failed to prove that it's fusion. Until they abandon the crusade to prove it's fusion and focus instead on the basic science to document the underlying mechanism, so that the scientific community is faced with something that has a credible basis in known science rather than one of the long-standing wishes of science fiction authors, they will not achieve mainstream acceptance. That is cold fusion for you. Whether condensed matter nuclear science exists as a separate field, other than as a way of avoiding the stigma attached to the term cold fusion, I do not know. As I said above, you'll need to ask someone whose good faith is somewhat less bruised than mine. Remember, I have been attacked around the place for daring to assert what the RFAR actually proved, which is that Pcarbonn is a POV-pusher advancing a non-neutral agenda in an attempt to use Wikipedia to shape rather than reflect real world opinion. I am somewhat concerned that you still appear to be repudiating the fact that Pcarbonn's work was POV-pushing. I don't see how there can be any doubt of that. And I don't see ow there can be any doubt, from the context and evidence in that case, that cold fusion is a fringe or pariah field. It is not being published in the high-impact journals, it is mainly published in journals of no obvious expertise in the field (who thus may not have the review board expertise to spot bad science in detail) and in fringe journals around the free energy suppression movement. But none of that is relevant to the WP:CSD#G8 deletion of a talk page of a POV-fork, and again as I said above you will need to find someone whose feelings are less informed by past abuses of good faith. Guy (Help!) 11:05, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, JzG. Your analysis of the situation is understandable, though problematic because it's incomplete; this is not the occasion to debate any of that. First things first: I read the above as a recusal from specific objection to restoration of this page; if we accept all of the arguments you have made, it would not indicate deletion of that page. As you wrote, and as you have made clear, you would "not support" it, but you did not indicate that you would oppose it and "you'll need to ask someone [else]" means recusal to me. Of course, I did ask someone else, Sarcasticidealist. I really should have asked you, technically, but I was first thinking only of userification and, perhaps correctly, anticipated your response (and he correctly asked you about actual undeletion to article Talk space). Condensed matter nuclear science wasn't deleted, the Talk page, then, shouldn't be deleted -- unless there are conditions there that would require such a drasic step, which, of course, I can't see. --Abd (talk) 16:53, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

The main problem is that the article was a POV-fork and most of that talk page is the usual suspects advancing the usual crap. I think a tabula rasa is a much better idea, even if you want to restart the article. But the sound you hear is me walking away from that. Guy (Help!) 17:25, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I disagree about POV fork, but you have no obligation to discuss this. Briefly, though, the field of CNMS is a substantially broader field than Cold fusion. The article may have been used as a POV fork, or not, that would depend on a lot of things I haven't investigated. What should really be done is to have an article on the field of inquiry (known in the field as CNMS, no longer simply LENR, not for a long time as Cold fusion, that article being NPOV, of course. And then the Cold fusion article is really about science history. Few are now claiming "cold fusion," the early Fleischmann claims are generally rejected. What's pretty clear, your friend confirmed it, is that something not understood is happening in those experiments. What is it? Is it nuclear in nature? There is now a lot of evidence for something nuclear, not necessarily "fusion." No neutrons -- or, recent research, only low-energy neutrons. Conclusive? Well, as you know, big claims require big proof. Given that most "think" of the field as "cold fusion," it's hard, apparently, to get critics to attempt replication of experiments. But the field of CNMS is not fringe, there is lots of stuff in peer-reviewed journals, etc. And a few reviews have been published. Inadequate, as yet, to be considered "conclusive" in my book. But not a whole lot below that!

The redirect essentially freezes in place a POV, that CMNS is simply Cold fusion under another name. Got RS for that? One step at a time, JzG. Thanks for recusing yourself. --Abd (talk) 19:04, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

• The redirect reverted a POV-fork. There has never been any prohibition on good faith users building new content on provably significant subjects at titles previously occupied by POV-forks, but be warned that it will be necessary to fight off the same crowd of kooks on that article. I trust you will be co-operating in that necessary work. Guy (Help!) 19:40, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Of course. If I miss something, please feel free to let me know. I may have different opinions than you as to what is "kooky" and what is not, but, I assure you, I have no intention of allowing unreliable sources to be used inappropriately, nor of the article, if restored, becoming a POV fork. I'm not convinced that it *was* a POV fork, there are quite good reasons for having an article on Condensed matter nuclear science, which most definitly is not the same thing as "cold fusion," though cold fusion would be an example of CMNS or of historical error, take your pick. (There are times when a source not normally considered reliable may still be used; I won't bore you with a list of exceptions, but they exist.) Thanks again. --Abd (talk) 19:46, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

That one user

Working on the R and I as you mentioned, but can't handle the B myself. May I ask you to block her work IP (her only currently unblocked one)? She's in overdrive this afternoon. If you'd rather not, where would be the best place to ask, WP:AIV? Another possible solution would be to semi-protect her user and talk pages, since that's all she seems to be editing. Precious Roy (talk) 19:12, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Precious Roy (talk) 19:23, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

No problem. Let's keep the drama down, though, just courtesy blank everything and leave it to someone else to do anything linking the idiocy to the account, there is at least one person out there who goes completely ballistic any time the user name is even mentioned, especially by you. Not rational behaviour, but not controllable either. Guy (Help!) 19:37, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. Note, however, that a while back I meticulously went through and blanked every related page (every talk page, user page, etc.) and she still came back. Precious Roy (talk) 20:27, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

You were expecting rational behaviour? Face it, this person is obsessive. Guy (Help!) 20:44, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

True. In any case, thanks for your help. Precious Roy (talk) 20:52, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Afd of Mucoid plaque

Mucoid plaque is up for AFD... again.

The latest discussion is here. As a previous participant in a AFD discussion for this article, you are encouraged to contribute to ongoing consensus of whether or not this article meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion.--ZayZayEM (talk) 02:49, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Xfm North East

Hello, I'm the original creator of the page and wondered what the problem with it is. Xfm north east is an exciting new radio station (hopefully) coming soon to my area. I put references in so please could you let me know what to do to get it back. Many thanks. OneThatDontSpeak —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.193.171.13 (talk) 23:05, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

• WP:CRYSTAL and WP:N should explain everything. The word "hopefully" is key here. Guy (Help!) 23:08, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

<3

Joy

Celarnor ^{Talk to me} has given you a kitten! Kittens promote Wikilove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Share the WikiLove and civility with everyone and keep up the excellent editing! Send kittens to others by adding {{subst:Joy message}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Jed Rothwell on Cold Fusion Talk

There is a lot of needless bickering going on over at the cold fusion talk page. Much of it relates to your edit here. Would you be so kind as to weigh in on the topic there, please? Also, if you believe that there exists an enforcible community topic ban on this user would you please be so kind as to register that fact at WP:Editing restrictions to resolve this confusion? Thanks. --GoRight (talk) 02:37, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Your block of 208.89.102.50

Yesterday, you blocked this IP. No evidence was shown of block or ban violations, and the fact of this was being discussed at Talk:Cold fusion. I know you may argue that there is a ban; however, you are clearly an involved administrator, one who proposed a ban, and the prior AN discussion was never closed by a neutral admin. Please unblock and if there is a need for a block, please take it to AN as would any other editor. --Abd (talk) 19:41, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

• Bzzzt! Wrong. It was Rothwell, and Rothwell's IP was (is) blocked. He shifted IPs again. He does it all the time. Guy (Help!) 23:13, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Don't say I didn't ask. I'll still say it: I've seen no cogent evidence of block or ban violations, unless you think that you have the authority to argue for a ban, declare the ban, and then enforce it. At the same time as being involved. I'm just going to assert this here, I'm not going to waste my time and yours with diffs, etc. Maybe I missed something. If you want to contest this, you will certainly have the opportunity! Otherwise, please, unblock. I won't ask again. If you think me wrong, fine, I'm not threatening you with anything. Perhaps you'll get a barnstar. However, you can be sure that this will be discussed. Actually, it already has been discussed, just not this specific incident. I'd hoped you'd avoid stuff like this. --Abd (talk) 23:23, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Of course it was Rothwell. He made 30 edits between 17 January and 25 January, and he signs them. Suddenly he's blocked. Perhaps you might say why. You mention another IP address. Please reference the other standing block, I'd think it would be relevant!

Let's see, known Rothewell IP, going back in time, based on edits to [[Talk:Cold fusion:

• Special:Contributions/208.89.102.50 you just blocked after a week of activity.
• Special:Contributions/68.219.198.240 20-27 January. No block. Overlap indicates Rothwell has two different access points. Both probably dynamic IP.
• Special:Contributions/68.219.153.157 January 19. No block.
• Special:Contributions/208.65.88.140 9 January, speculative, possible Rothwell. No block. Test edit, immediately self-reverted.
• Special:Contributions/208.65.88.200 December 18, no block.

Now comes Special:Contributions/68.158.255.197, active from 12 December to 17 December. You blocked this IP, December 18. One month block. There was no mention of a ban. Now, that block expired a week before you again blocked new IP. Punishment for some prior violation of block? Was there a warning?

Looks to me like Rothwell did not violate your month block, unless you want to call that test edit -- which showed him that he could edit -- a violation. I'd suggest not trying. Anyway, you don't need to answer these questions, if you don't care to. But my guess is that they will come up. It's possible that there is some indef block of some IP somewhere. How deeply should I look? User:JedRothwell isn't blocked, nor has he been notified of a topic ban or warned of a block. That the account is inactive is irrelevant. JzG, I think you've gone too far. I suggest you consider unblocking, small thing; you know it's harmless anyway. To sustain this will likely bring the whole story out, I'd rather not do that; perhaps you would. Up to you. --Abd (talk) 00:07, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I see that you also blocked:

• Special:Contributions/69.228.207.247
• Special:Contributions/69.228.220.30

I don't think these were Rothwell, unless he is partitioning his behavior, which seems unlikely. Anyway, this would explain why you think he'd been evading your block. --Abd (talk) 01:17, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

All of the following seem to be quite applicable under the circumstances:

• Use of administrative tools in a dispute
• Bad Blood
• Good intentions
• Harassment is disruptive
• Tango desysopped

Just something to think about. --GoRight (talk) 01:57, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

The arbitration that got my attention on this was Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Physchim62, and what was clear to me was that Physchim62 was headed for desysopping not because he'd blocked when involved, that was merely an error. It was because he steadfastly refused to acknowledge that it was an error. And his friends kept on encouraging him.... He needed better friends, ones who would tell him when he'd screwed up. Same thing happened with Tango, a bit later. --Abd (talk) 04:50, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

You guys, those situations are not comparable because JzG already went to AN to ask other admins here before banning, Jed was clearly disrupting the talk page, etc, so I very highly doubt that JzG has to fear any desyoping over this.

Also, I still think that arguing about the requirements for a ban is useless, and I already told you how and where to appeal the ban, so go on and appeal it already :P --Enric Naval (talk) 19:30, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't matter how many times you say it, there is no ban. Ergo, there is nothing to appeal. I note that User:JzG has still not recorded any such ban at WP:Editing restrictions. Why is that, exactly? --GoRight (talk) 20:52, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Ask him. (as for me, I already told you that listing the ban there is not a requirement for the ban existing) --Enric Naval (talk) 21:26, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I have. Thus far he has no response. --GoRight (talk) 22:01, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

• It is covered by the topic ban on Pcarbonn. He is a close collaborator of a topic-banned user, a collaborator in the off-wiki campaign that Pcarbonn brought here, a troll, a spammer and a POV-pusher. And those are his good points. Guy (Help!) 21:51, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

• Really? Can you point me to where the arbitration that topic banned Pcarbonn mentions a ban for this user? And if you are correct, then go enter the notice at WP:Editing restrictions as this seems to have been an oversight. --GoRight (talk) 21:59, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

• Oh how silly of me. Pcarbonn was banned for bringing Rothwell's battle to Wikipedia, so we should interpret that as legalistically as we possibly can and bend over so far backwards to appease Rothwell that our heads disappear up our arses. Or - here's a novelty - we could read the arbiotration case, note the off-wiki agenda and POV-pushing, spot that it was actually Rothwell's agenda and that Rothwell and Pcarbonn are off-wiki collaborators (see http://knol.google.com/k/jed-rothwell/cold-fusion/2zjj2hvn3qzi5/2#) and spot the blindingly obvious: that there is one problem with two exemplars. And that's before you get to the spamming and trolling. Guy (Help!) 22:03, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

• We deal with spam and trolling all the time. This is no exception. But to claim a ban where none exists is just wrong on its face. --GoRight (talk) 22:08, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

• To claim that a ban exists when a user is a close collaborator of a banned user, posting in the same area, and is a WP:SPA, is in fact quite normal. There are multiple ArbCom cases which reiterate the principle that when two accounts act in harmony then they may be treated as a single account. What we don't do - at least I hope not - is allow someone to bring a battle to Wikipedia, spend months getting round to chasing them off, and then sit back when the person whose battle it was in the first place comes here to pick up the baton. That would be plain silly. Guy (Help!) 22:27, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

GoRight, if you disagree with an admin's action - and obviously, you do - then the first step is to discuss it with them. Done. Guy has not been convinced. The next step, if you still feel strongly, would be to request outside review in a venue such as WP:AN or WP:AN/I. Or you could try a new line of discussion here, but I don't think this is going anywhere beyond increasingly forceful restatements of your respective positions. MastCell ^Talk 00:54, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate your advice. I have nothing in particular against User:JzG. I have no doubt that he is acting in good faith in the furtherance of what he believes is a good cause, I just disagree with the assertion that a topic ban on Rothwell exists based on the available evidence. As you can see below the issue has been escalated so I have responded there. --GoRight (talk) 19:48, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Guy himself has brought it directly to arbitration, I'll make a statement there: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Cold_fusion_topic_bans --Enric Naval (talk) 12:54, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Tad premature? I guess we'll see. Guy, I don't know why you are forcing this to pop to that level (I haven't looked yet), but you may be right. Maybe the can of worms does need to be opened and examined. --Abd (talk) 13:44, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

It appears that those commenting on JzG's proposal completely support him. Does that make you feel like you are hounding JzG a little bit. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:47, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) No, not at all. For one thing, I was done here. I'd presented a request, with sufficient evidence, I thought, and he refused. What's "hounding"? Simply questioning an admin action is "hounding"? JzG took a minor dispute to ArbComm? That's certainly unusual! As to the comments, no, not all those commenting are supporting, and it's only begun. ArbComm ratifying JzG's proposal would set some very, very dangerous precedents, and all I want, now that this has gone to ArbComm, is that ArbComm carefully considers what it does. It could have major impacts, and the ban of Rothwell is tiny comparatively. JzG, I have no intention of hounding you, and this comment is made here only in reply to Spartaz because he asked. I don't see that we have anything to discuss at this point, personally, we were done; but you are certainly welcome to respond, your place or mine, and I continue to assume good faith and regret that this could become a difficulty for you. It shouldn't have been before you took it to ArbComm, you had no obligation to do anything unless you chose to do so, there was no action against you, no emergency, and maybe it still won't be a problem. Good luck. --Abd (talk) 19:37, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

reply to above

I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer given by the right honourable member for citizendium south: "show the door to vandals, trolls and wiki-anarchists who would waste your time and create a poisonous atmosphere"

Vandalism: spamming fits the bill. Trolling: yes, of numerous editors, usually because they supported canonical policy. Wiki anarchist: yes, persistent IP-hopping and promotion of his site, created a knol with pcarbonn to promote the fringe crap pc is now banned from posting, which is editing by proxy for a banned user. Out simply, jed's input is an active impediment to fixing an article badly skewed by an editor who is now topic banned. We do not need him, we do not need his special pleading and we do not need people to enable offsite pov-pushing to be brought to wikipedia.

This from my blackberry so apologies for limited links etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.186.20.124 (talk) 21:10, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

• nobody is obliged to do anything on wikipedia, but I am entirely within the normAl scope of expected behaviour if I try to ensure that offsite pov pushing us kept offsite where it belongs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.186.20.155 (talk) 20:26, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Just saying...

Fuck you're a cranky bastard. I've said so several times in the last few days. Yet somehow I've always found you strangely appealing.

Much love (but in a safe, manly way)
brenneman 13:30, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

• Ha! Damn right. I can be very cranky indeed, especially when I am under time pressures and tight deadlines (which I am right now). Thanks for reminding me to count to ten before clicking Save :-) Guy (Help!) 14:36, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Just to say...

AWstats rocks! And the log rollup perl script is marvellous. Now all my esx server logs can be combined! Guy (Help!) 22:28, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

EXPLANATION DEMANDED

• Squrgers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Can you please provide me with a satisfactory explanation as to why you deleted my entry 'Squrgers'. There is no copyright infringement as the material was written by ME, yes it was from the website you mentioned but this is MY website. Therefore how can i be breaching copyright when the material BELONGS to ME? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Squrger (talk • contribs) 13:21, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

(just passing by) Any text inserted into Wikipedia is released by its author under "GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with no Invariant Sections, with no Front-Cover Texts, and with no Back-Cover Texts.". That website has no copyright notice anywhere saying it's licensed under a GFDL-compatible license, and JzG can't read your mind and know that you are the owner of that website.

You have to put a note on your website saying something like "I release the text on this website under GFDL so it can be used by wikipedia". Or, if you don't want to do that, then maybe it would be easir to put a note on your website saying "User "Squrger" on wikipedia has permission to use any text from this website in wikipedia articles under GFDL."

Also, notice that, even after getting over the copyright problems, you still have to show how the "Squrger" guideline complies with the notability guideline. You need to provide reliable independient third-party sources (usually newspaper reports, like the NewCastle Chronicle report on your website). So be prepared to dig out any newspapers item in which Squrger appears and present them on the article --Enric Naval (talk) 17:12, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

• Demanding stuff always works well. Don't forget to threaten to sue if the explanation is not to your liking. And write to your Congressman letting him know how evil it is that Wikipedia deletes stuff without proof of copyright release - I'm sure that we can get a law passed making it mandatory to leave all material on Wikipedia indefinitely if someone says it is theirs, even though we've had people tell us some outrageous fibs about that in the past.

Mind you, the fact that the deleted content was also abject nonsense, utterly failed every policy we have, and was almost certainly advertising as well, does rather weaken your case. Guy (Help!) 23:07, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Aw, come on, Guy. Squrgers contain no scrotums. Surely that counts for something? Bishonen | talk 23:21, 31 January 2009 (UTC).

Cthulhu Nation deletion

Yes, it had been recreated. The original vote to delete was based (iirc) on a lack of reliable sources and unclear notability. The new version of the article (i.e., the one that was just deleted) was necessarily similar to the originally-deleted version - but had made a genuine effort to address the RS/notability concerns. As such, does it really fall under CSD:G4? - "provided the copy is substantially identical to the deleted version and that any changes in the recreated page do not address the reasons for which the material was deleted." That is, was it really "substantially identical"? - Jaeger5432 | Talk 23:14, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

• Try a sourced userspace rewrite and DRV, that is the best method. Otherwise crap which was delete dis always likely to be deleted again when it's re-created, because we have had too many bad experiences with obsessive fans gaming the system by writing New! IMPROVED!! articles which are not quite the same. Guy (Help!) 23:20, 31 January 2009 (UTC)