Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Jeffrey O. Gustafson 2

Response to Jouster's outside view
The problem is, archiving your talk page immediately serves to discourage any discussion, even if the person who asked something sees the response. If someone deletes my comment immediately after recieving it, I wouldn't think they were willing to have a discussion, much less want to have one. We should not have to go out of our way to accomodate someone who wishes to respond once and never talk about something again, because that makes conversation impossible. -Amarkov — moo! 05:50, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * In addition, simply allowing the talk page to exist and be edited does not resolve the issue of the tone of JOG's responses, his violations of policy, and the other three issues brought up in the "Evidence of disputed behavior" section. Your proposed solution is a partial (see Amarkov's comment above) first step, but does not address what seems to be a more fundamental problem. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 06:00, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * You are, of course, absolutely right. I just want to deemphasize his Talk page habits, as those seem to be a source of a lot of WikiStress about him, but deleterious to the tone of the overall conversation.  The existence of other concerns is why I say in my Outside View, "the other issues notwithstanding".
 * To Amorkov, your concern is valid, but it's hard to draw the line clearly, and I'd much rather have an editor who obsessively cleans his Talk page than a vandal. So long as that conversation can occur—and I think we can all agree that protecting a Talk page is a hell of a way to ensure that it doesn't—the ease with which it can occur is largely within J.O.G.'s right to fiat in his user space.  Jouster  (  whisper  ) 14:29, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I disagree. The reason we have talk pages is to encourage conversation. And we do that because Wikipedia is an essentially collaborative project. I've actually tried to have a conversation with him via edit summaries, and I believe his unusual style isn't a harmless quirk. I believe it actively discourages conversation, and I assume that's at least partly his intent.
 * I'd love to honor his request to leave him alone, as it seems like he's kinda fed up with Wikipedia, and could use some peace and quiet. But by continuing to act as an admin, he isn't leaving his fellow editors alone. If he wants to work on a collaborative project (and, after a rest, I hope he does), that inevitably involves talking to people. William Pietri 20:02, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia has thus far rejected such regulation of what people can and can't do with their talk pages in terms of archiving, replying, etc. I can't truly fault him for doing things that aren't actually against any policy or guideline, as far as I can tell. --W.marsh 00:09, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Exactly, which is why I was trying to strike a slightly-different note. When the goals of the project conflict with your user page habits, that is then clearly a problem.  Thus why my three-point solution is expressed in terms of the underlying principles of Wikipedia violated by the current strategy.  Jouster  (  whisper  ) 00:29, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

A general question
As I take part in my first RfC, I can't help but wonder if such interventions do any good. I only ask since it seems Jeffrey has been the subject of another RfC before (here). Jeffrey has also been the subject of two Administrator reviews (the one leading to this RfC as well as this one). Jeffrey has also been blocked a number of times. So far, these forms of intervention have accomplished nothing aside from some people blowing off steam. So, I guess my question is this: is this process going to actually accomplish anything? I only ask because I honestly do not know, and given the previous attempts, it seems unlikely to me. Drewcifer3000 07:40, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The answer is it's too soon to tell. We have seen some changes in this admin's behavior in the past 36 hours, so perhaps the ANI thread and/or this RfC are having some impact. Part of the value of this process is seeing views from users who have not previously been involved in the dispute. We'll see where things go from here. Newyorkbrad 07:54, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * WP/AN threads and RfC's remain as permanent evidence of an editor's past conduct. I would imagine that the sum of this evidence can be used for future decisions and actions, much like what happens in school or at work where the authorities use your "record" to help them decide what course of action to take with you if they have some reason to examine your performance or conduct.  In Wikipedia, I assume that the evidence in these RfCs and AN threads would be considered by the arbitration board were it to come to that. Cla68 03:30, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Response to Friday
So, basically, WP:TROUT? Jouster (  whisper  ) 00:54, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Sure, that's one way to put it. Wanting to be left alone is totally doable- he can take a break any time he wants, and he'll be welcome back any time he wants.  What doesn't work is continuing to edit while rejecting feedback from others. Friday (talk) 14:52, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Small point re Violation of the civility policy
The "fuck you Veridae" is obviously a joke in response to a similar one by Viridae, visible to admins here. As it stands in the list of civility complaints it's misleading, and it should be removed. No comment on anything else here; haven't really looked into it. Chick Bowen 03:58, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I am reinstating the entry given this exchange on Jeffrey's talk page. Though Viridae's edit may or may not have been a joke, Jeffrey's does not seem to have been. Black Falcon (Talk) 23:28, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Response to Walton One
I was rather surprised and dismayed by this statement. The specific speedy deletion criteria are fine as far as they go, but they're not written in stone. It is not preferable to quote some gibberish like "G7" instead of explaining in plain English why a deletion was done. We do a useful service to anyone trying to read the deletion logs when we explain why we did what we did without using obscure codes. As long as one is willing and able to explain their actions, suggesting desysopping for a failure to follow the letter of the law is very inappropriate. Friday (talk) 14:28, 20 July 2007 (UTC)


 * There may be exceptions - hence why I made clear that desysopping should only be a response to persistent and blatant ignoring of the written policy. Yes, there are times when it's appropriate to speedy-delete something which falls outside one of the criteria, when supported by a clear and coherent reason. However, routinely speedy-deleting content for reasons which are explicitly described as invalid under the "Speedy non-criteria" section of WP:CSD is highly inappropriate behaviour, and constitutes wilful avoidance of policy. So I stand by my statements. WaltonOne 14:43, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Arbitration case
An arbitration case has been filed against Jeffrey O. Gustafson. Please see Requests for arbitration. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 16:33, 22 July 2007 (UTC)