User:JzG/ATren

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Right. This is where it ends. ATren can put his version, I'll put mine, and that's an end of it. Since ATren is watching my every edit just in case I manage to sneak in a reference to the PRT war which is not entirely supportive of his version, I'm sure he'll be along any minute...

Which indeed he did.

[edit] ATren's version

I have documented my version elsewhere, with plenty of diffs to support everything I claimed. I'm not going to rehash it all here. Suffice to say that most of what JzG writes below is untrue. Notice he does not provide one single diff to support his position, while I've supported at least a dozen to support mine.

Let me just raise this point: when I complained that JzG shouldn't have mediated, he said he wasn't mediating, even though he himself called it a "mediation process".

So let's assume he wasn't mediating, and was just acting as another editor in a content dispute - then why did he twice threaten to lock the page? Is this not a blatant abuse of admin powers, to threaten the use of admin tools to squelch the other side of a content dispute?

So which was it: was JzG mediating, in which case I assert he should have recused because of his well documented affection for Avidor; or was he just editing, in which case he abused his admin powers by threatening to lock the article in response to an edit he didn't like (and, to add insult to injury, that lock threat was based on his mistake when he misread a single word in that edit -- twice!) ?

ATren 23:58, 18 December 2006 (UTC)


... and, of course, when he cannot defend against the evidence, JzG resorts to "believe me just because I'm an admin and all wise". I must have missed the page describing how admins are infallible.

This kind of argument is usually the last resort of those who have no argument. JzG has never presented a single diff to support his view; when I present diffs to support my view, he falls back on the "believe me because I'm popular". JzG would have you ignore all the evidence I've presented, and just take his word for it that he did nothing wrong in this dispute, and that I am nothing but a single-purpose POV-pusher. BTW, I've repeatedly asked him to provide the diffs that show evidence of my POV pushing - to date, he's not provided a single diff.

But then, why should he provide diffs? Does the Pope need to provide proof when he proclaims the doctrine of the Catholic church? JzG is so accustomed to using his admin status to intimidate other editors, that he now flaunts it openly. He's proud that he's "stubborn and opinionated" - other editors be dammed! NPOV be dammed! He's JzG, dammit! The rules don't apply to him!

For those who doubt this, just read his paragraph below starting with "OK, now you have both sides. Choose who to believe." It's abundantly clear that he expects you to take his word on faith, without a shred of evidence to support his view, and despite all the evidence I've provided to contradict his words. This is the ultimate in administrative hubris. ATren 01:05, 19 December 2006 (UTC)


For the record, here is a summary of my complaint, with diffs, copied from my rationale for voting against JzG in the arb com elections:

Here is my experience in a mediation with JzG:

JzG mediated a dispute on the PRT pages, even though he admitted he was a "huge fan" of the single editor on the other side of the dispute (Avidor). JzG now claims it was not a mediation, but he himself called it a mediation here and didn't disagree here - it's clear he was acting as a mediator.

During this dispute:

  1. JzG threatened to lock the article due to his title=Talk:Personal_rapid_transit&diff=prev&oldid=46326855 misreading of a single word. When the other editor politely corrected him, JzG insisted he read it right (he didn't) and again threatened to lock. JzG never acknowledged his mistake, and generally acted as if it never happened.
  2. JzG effectively took ownership of the article - during and after his threat to lock, he summarily reverted almmost all changes we made, with cryptic or sarcastic edit comments [1], [2] ("History indicates that disinterested third parties are more likely ot be neutral than proponents." - rejecting an edit solely because he believed the editor was a "proponent"), [3], [4](reverted 9 separate edits with one cryptic edit comment), [5](reverted a whole set of unrelated changes because he disagreed with 3 words), [6](again reverted without apparently reading the edit).
  3. JzG repeatedly tried to insert unreliable sources linked to Avidor, including one of Avidor's anti-PRT political cartoons, links to Avidor's personal anti-PRT web site, and links to Light Rail Now, a pro-light-rail (and anti-PRT) astroturfing group which features articles written by Avidor. None of these links was verifiable or reliable, but JzG continued to push them into the article even as he was rejecting journal articles and conference papers as invalid (because they were written by "proponents" - i.e. respected civil engineering researchers who specialize in PRT).
  4. JzG repeatedly defended Avidor even though there was ample evidence that Avidor was manipulating Wikipedia to advance his well publicized political agenda. When I pointed this out to JzG, he accused me of having my own agenda - an accusation that is not only groundless, but completely false. I am willing to reveal my identity to a trusted third party to verify my complete non-involvement with PRT or politics.
  5. JzG is also frequently sarcastic and condescending in content disputes, something that only serves to inflame disputes.

I've asked JzG why he didn't recuse himself from a dispute in which he clearly could be accused of having a bias, and he never gave me a direct answer - preferring instead to accuse me of political motivations. I would be more inclined to vote for JzG if he would admitted it was a bad idea to participate in this dispute given that he was a "huge fan" of Avidor's work, but JzG continues to assert he did absolutely nothing wrong. This leads me to believe he will be unwilling or incapable of recusing himself from arbitration cases where he has a bias towards one of the participants.

I have nothing against JzG. By all accounts he is a good person and well-liked by the community. However, as someone who has been involved in a content dispute with JzG, I can say without qualification that he is not a good candidate for the arbitration committee. His temper (see examples of outbursts linked from the vote page), his lack of attention to detail (see: his threat to block based on his misreading of a single word), and his inability to recognize his own biases... these are not qualities that make for a good judge. ATren 02:54, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

In the interest of full disclosure: I have an ongoing dispute with Avidor and his political campaign, and this dispute has spread off-wiki. The dispute started here on Wikipedia, when I was reading about PRT and encountered his edits. I was new to PRT then, and after I did my own research, I found almost nothing verifiable in Avidor's campaign. It was then that I registered a Wikipedia username and began challenging Avidor's edits. I was inexperienced then and lost my temper once or twice, but it was always in good faith - I didn't like the idea of Avidor using Wikipedia to advance his campaign. I've since posted many comments in forums and blogs, off-wiki, responding to Avidor's comments about PRT. I also recently started a blog to address Avidor's off-wiki tactics, including his year-long use of a sock puppet blog to feign third-party support for his campaign.

I mention all of this because JzG has made the accusation that I "brought an external dispute here" - but in fact it started here and spread elsewhere. He has also claimed that my external activities somehow indicate I must be involved with PRT or politics, but I am absolutely not. Again, I would be willing to reveal my identity to a trusted third party, to verify that I am nobody in politics or PRT. ATren 03:57, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

JzG writes: "The pro-PRT side (who have, I remind you, never once admitted to being anything but neutral) posted comments on the Talk page about chummy exchanges with "Doug" (Malewicki) and others." - what on earth are you talking about? Who had a chummy exchange with "Doug"? Certainly not me, I've never interacted with the man whatsoever.

Perhaps if you provided a diff, we could address the speicific point, but POV-pushing admins don't need to provide diffs - they are automatically telling the truth by virtue of their reputation and high edit count. ATren 21:40, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My version

This is from memory at this point. You can have diffs if you want, but really just looking at the version of the article before I turned up, and ATren's contribution history at that time, will tell you everything you need to know.

  • I came to a content dispute on personal rapid transit (PRT), I can't remember how now. A request for meditation was active, but I was not (am not and never have been) a mediator
  • among the editors on the article were two single-purpose account, User:A Transportation Enthusiast (now User:ATren) and User:Avidor, the cartoonist Ken Avidor
  • Other editors included User:Fresheneesz, whose disruptive editing style has been documented in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Non-Notability
  • I am a fan of Avidor's cartoons
  • I am a fan of alternative and car-free transportation
  • I am not a fan of single-purpose accounts and use of Wikipedia articles to further external political agendas
  • Avidor's bias was obvious, openly declared and easily discounted.
  • None of the other parties ever admitted to any bias whatsoever, although the article was clearly badly skewed in favour of proponents of PRT, including being illustrated with artists' impressions of a system which does not even exist in prototype.
  • The article was being edited by both sides of a dispute about a controversial PRT proposal in Minnesota.
  • Above all, the article did not explain why after around four decades of promotion no real-world system yet exists.
  • I fixed that, as well as removing the "ah yes but..." rebuttals by proponents of many credible points against the technology.
  • They didn't like it much
  • They argued for months
  • At one point I threatened to lock it to stop the lame edit warring. I don't think I ever did, though.
  • User:Stephen B Streater took over, his edits were much the same as mine but encountered less resistance
  • I left the article pretty much alone
  • ATren, in particular, still edits that article actively.
  • ATren accuses me of violating WP:OWN despite the fact that he has edited the article more, more often, and more consistently than me.
  • Both Avidor and ATren now have offsite blogs attacking each other and in AVidor's case opponents in the Minnesota PRT war
  • I quite likely made a few minor mistakes. I am human, and hadn't been an admin long.
  • Of the few genuinely neutral sources which have been found for that article, one is a literature review (a secondary source, exactly what we need for an encyclopaedia) and notes that the literature lacks self-criticism.
  • I do not think I have any particular bias on this subject, I am confident I will travel on the first production PRT system in Heathrow airport car park, but I don't think we should have a large article stating that this is a wide-scale urban transport mode when the only systems ordered so far are in car parks!
  • The pro-PRT side (who have, I remind you, never once admitted to being anything but neutral) posted comments on the Talk page about chummy exchanges with "Doug" (Malewicki) and others. Malewicki is punting SkyTran, a paper scheme with no backers and no prototype.
  • Avidor posted some crap on my Talk page, which I ignored (as usual)
  • ATren popped up, like the proverbial bad penny, to assert that I should unilaterally condemn one half of the dispute; ATren refused, as he has at all stages of the dispute, to acknowledge any bias. ATren has consistently portrayed his own bias as neutrality. Instead of unilaterally condeming one side, I condemned biased editing to serve an external political agenda. ATren did not like this and became strident.
  • ATren invented a new theory that I was a "mediator" when I should have recused, and used this to try to prevent me from being elected to ArbCom. I subsequently withdrew because a number of editors I trust identified that I was dealing with trolls badly. Valid point, then and now (hey, maybe that's why you're here!).
  • The PRT article is still skewed by virtue of the fact that almost all the sources are uncritical, as identified by the cited literature review, and by excessive reliance on a small number of enthusiasts (Anderson, Schneider) for much of the content. Anything critical of the technology is still vigorously resisted, cited or not. And still the article documents a proposed wide-scale urban transportation system, not a people mover for car parks, which is the only thing that's yet been ordered (there are no completed systems at all). And yes, that does concern me. In fact, it grates. I hate articles which document something people wish would be rather than what verifiably is. So sue me.

OK, now you have both sides. Choose who to believe: me, an admin of some standing, fallible enough but reasonably trusted by now, or someone who was then a single purpose account, who follows me around looking for stray mentions of his edit war (which must be a singularly dull task, at last count I have over 12,000 pages on my watchlist, plus Talk pages, and that doesn't count the ones which have been deleted after taking part in deletion debates), who has never once admitted to bias, but who runs an attack blog against the other party in the dispute. Sure, I could be wrong. But I don't think I am, or at least not to anything like the extent that ATren claims. I have no doubt that if you go through my tens of thousands of edits (I'm in Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of edits with both this and my old account) you can find a goodly number where I've been wrong, and some where I've been obdurately wrong - I apologise if I ever left the impression that I am anything other than stubborn and opinionated. Anyway, I'm sick of being trolled, so I don't intend to include any mention of this dispute on any article other than this one in future. Let's see if I can keep it up. Guy (Help!) 00:32, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../j/z/g/User%7EJzG_ATren_2031.html"