Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:29, 10 July 2007

Template loop detected: Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Community sanction/Header

User:Jeffrey O. Gustafson

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

He's apparently determined to consistently dismiss any communications from other editors. I see this as being fundamentally incompatible with a collaborative project. Thus, I recommend an indefinite block until he changes his approach, but as he's a long-time contributor, this probably shouldn't be done lightly. I'm open to other approaches or venues (RFC?) but I'm not sure it would help- he knows exactly what the problem is, and he chooses to continue being unresponsive anyway. I've seen this general issue as an ongoing problem for probably at least a year, but apparently it's getting worse lately. See also Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Behaviour_of_Jeffrey_O._Gustafson. I can't think of many realistic options at this point. Friday (talk) 22:00, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Well an indefinite block certainly isn't a realistic option, it's somewhat akin to trying to put out a fire with kerosene. Nick 22:08, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

This is a dispute over the user of administrator powers, not editing. The level of concerns has been drawn to his attention increasingly within the past couple of days, and already he has made some adjustments in his behavior, though there is more that needs to change. If problems persist, the only appropriate vehicle is either an admin-conduct RfC or an arbitration case. Newyorkbrad 22:09, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Wholly inappropriate at this stage; I would recommend an RfC. Mackensen (talk) 22:12, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I suggest burning at the stake. But I am a bit biased. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 22:15, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd be all for that. WjBscribe 22:16, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that an indefinite block is at all neccessary. We usually reserve such measures for people who have solely used their accounts for "trolling" or who are long-term abusers of Misplaced Pages policy with extensive block logs. I think that a reasonable solution to this issue would however be desyopping. From the user's own contributions and admin log he's shown a consistent attitude of not adhering to WP:CIVIL. He has already stated that he has no intention of changing this attitude and attempts to engage him on his talk page have resulted in the user going as far as to delete his talk page in order to remove diffs of these engagements. I think that if this were not an admin user we would have all demanded at least a block long ago.--Jersey Devil 22:14, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Sigh, nothing is hidden, the whole history is there. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 22:15, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I really don't think anything has occured that needs discussion on this board... WjBscribe 22:16, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Seems like overkill to me. Drewcifer3000 22:17, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I suggest desysopping with the user remaining in good standing. I think a nice rest (no, not an enforced Wikibreak) away from Misplaced Pages is probably a good idea at this time. Nick 22:19, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

These kinds of situations are really why we need a mandatory recall process for all admins. Regardless, I too suggest a voluntary wikibreak and users should just avoid (at least from the time being) responding on this user's talk page.--Jersey Devil 22:23, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think reporting another administrator at a noticeboard and suggesting an immediate indefinite block is productive at all, and is only likely to produce drama. Such an act of insensitivity would only inflame the situation, and likely drive away a contributor, rather than solve anything. Premature block requests instead of dispute resolution look like nothing more than drama-seeking, and are likely to drown out the legitimate concerns at hand. I suggest this thread be archived to prevent that outcome, and the people involved pursue a constructive line of discourse instead. Dmcdevit·t 22:34, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, please close this thread. If dialogue with Jeffrey doesn't result in a positive outcome, then start an RfC. The suggestion of an indef block is premature. --Akhilleus (talk) 22:42, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Rex Germanus

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

No community ban is required at this stage. All parties have been blocked in accordance w/ Misplaced Pages policies. See Outcome at ANI. -- FayssalF - 21:29, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Problem Rex has a history of being disruptive. Here is an arbitration case involving Rex. If you look at this part of the arbitration case, you'll see that he has 6 blocks since his probation has started. He has 1 block during the this case. He continues to exhausts the Misplaced Pages community. Here and here are two examples of that. If you look at his user page and his subpage, he clearly goes against this guideline. Action is clearly needed for this guy.

Solution

• Permanent block

Kingjeff 17:13, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Problem: Kingjeff is engaged in forum shopping here and here and canvassing, and isn't getting the response he wants. Thatcher131 17:14, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Maybe not from Rex himself. Kingjeff 17:18, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Problem: : IWANTHIMBLOCKED, but those bastards at ANI won't oblige. Solution: Kingjeff stops trolling. Moreschi 17:18, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

How about we just block them both and be done with it ? Nick 17:20, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not trolling at all. Kingjeff 17:23, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

What about canvassing? How many user talk pages did you drop that invitation to this page on? Bladestorm 17:24, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Ah, sorry. I should have just counted: 11 user talk pages you've canvassed. Bladestorm 17:26, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Kingjeff has rather a history of that when he isn't getting what he wants - . WjBscribe 17:28, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

You're forum shopping, badly. That counts. Moreschi 17:25, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Kingjeff: stop canvassing, right now, or else I block you, also right now. Moreschi 17:28, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

If any of you haven't noticed, this is about Rex Germanus. Not me. Kingjeff 17:29, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Wrong. Anybody with "This user can do no wrong, especially when it comes to editing Misplaced Pages." on their userpage badly needs to be blocked, IMHO. Nick 17:31, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Nice try at wiggling out: won't work. Stop forum shopping and canvassing, please. As I think has been pointed out on ANI, your claims have little merit. Moreschi 17:31, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:William_M._Connolley&diff=prev&oldid=143769539 and still it continues. Nick 17:33, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Blocked 24 hours. Moreschi 17:34, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Heh. I love this part. I really hope he read it before removing it though. (I don't mind people removing my comments, but it'd be disheartening if someone were to refuse to learn from their mistakes) Bladestorm 18:13, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Wow, that was "kurzer Prozeß". Here's what I wanted to write in the meantime: I have a much longer history with Rex than Kingjeff does, and I'm also a little surprised that this here is the fourth initiative of Kingjeff vs. Rex within a week or so, with the other two still going on, with me trying to provide some input from the top of my head. Thus I recommend to put this request here on hold or to reject the case for now. Kingjeff (and I, and others) have to learn first about the proper procedures and ways to present such a case with more patience and thorough preparation. Yet, I am convinced that someone somewhere will angrily call for a block of Rex again sooner or later, though, as Rex has made himself many enemies, and will continue to make new ones, there is few doubt. -- Matthead      O       17:46, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

See my remarks here. Thatcher131 17:48, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I have likewise a long history with Rex. This is a problem user, but not one that should be banned without going through rfar. If he continues in his present vein, he will end up with a longish block, but this is not a case of blatant abuse or one requiring instant action. His blocks will increase in length as probation continues, until or unless he learns his lesson. There is no need to short-circuit this process. dab (𒁳) 18:11, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I wonder if this entire fuss could go for libel. Because That Kingjeff tries to list my name on nearly every Wiki noticeboard there is. If anyone is seriously thinking about undergoing action note that User:Matthead is the real problem user, and a history to show for it. His anti Polish and anti Dutch attitude speak for themself.Rex 18:22, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Also, for your information. And this I swear with my hand on my heart, I do not make or seek enemies as allegated here, they find me, and when they get in the way of wikipedia being or continueing to be reliable, then problems arise. Rex 18:23, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I am not at all happy being drawn into this by Kingjeff through a post on my user page. I feel strongly for putting some restrictions on his canvassing as proposed above. For the rest, indeed I have encountered Rex, and IMHO he is stubborn and tends to overreact on German (nationalist) issues. It is however more often the aggressive/stubborn form of his editing rather than the ideas that he is adding that lands him in problems. While Rex makes enemies this way, and is not always as constructive as possible this is hardly a reason for a permanent block. Actually proposing such a block and posting this discussion seems like a directed effort to demonise an editor by the original poster (KingJeff) of this discussion. Arnoutf 18:25, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Bringing in Arnoutf is just another instance of canvassing/forum shopping/asking the other parent. On a side note, I have interacted with Rex G when we were both more or less newbie editors (solved a conflict via MSN chat) and based on that experience I agree with everything Arnoutf is saying above. (I could hardly miss this situation since I have a number of noticeboards on my watchlist). Avb 18:35, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Sanction Kingjeff instead

Looking at Kingjeff's block log, one has to wonder ... is it time for community sanctions on Kingjeff? Five 3RR blocks, two harassment blocks ... from my perspective as an uninvolved user, the only answer can be yes. I propose that he be given a one-month ban, and be placed on indefinite revert parole. Thoughts?Blueboy96 18:46, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

My only thought on the matter is that he's already currently blocked. There's no harm in seeing how he behaves once that block expires. If he causes more problems, then we can worry about it. But there's really no need to concern ourselves with too many 'what-if's. :) Bladestorm 18:48, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I just think that when you've racked up five 3RR blocks and three blocks for disruption/harassment, it's time for stronger measures. Blueboy96 19:00, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd rather not go there for the moment. There seems to be agreement that Rex can sometimes be a problem but that these problems don't warrant blocking at the present time. Kingjeff should be pointed to RFC if he wants to take action against Rex. Thatcher131 19:10, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Also, he (Kingjeff) says he's left. Bit pointless sanctioning someone who's both blocked and quit. Nil de mortuis etc. Moreschi 19:23, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Jeffrey O. Gustafson

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

He's apparently determined to consistently dismiss any communications from other editors. I see this as being fundamentally incompatible with a collaborative project. Thus, I recommend an indefinite block until he changes his approach, but as he's a long-time contributor, this probably shouldn't be done lightly. I'm open to other approaches or venues (RFC?) but I'm not sure it would help- he knows exactly what the problem is, and he chooses to continue being unresponsive anyway. I've seen this general issue as an ongoing problem for probably at least a year, but apparently it's getting worse lately. See also Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Behaviour_of_Jeffrey_O._Gustafson. I can't think of many realistic options at this point. Friday (talk) 22:00, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Well an indefinite block certainly isn't a realistic option, it's somewhat akin to trying to put out a fire with kerosene. Nick 22:08, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

This is a dispute over the user of administrator powers, not editing. The level of concerns has been drawn to his attention increasingly within the past couple of days, and already he has made some adjustments in his behavior, though there is more that needs to change. If problems persist, the only appropriate vehicle is either an admin-conduct RfC or an arbitration case. Newyorkbrad 22:09, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Wholly inappropriate at this stage; I would recommend an RfC. Mackensen (talk) 22:12, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I suggest burning at the stake. But I am a bit biased. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 22:15, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd be all for that. WjBscribe 22:16, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that an indefinite block is at all neccessary. We usually reserve such measures for people who have solely used their accounts for "trolling" or who are long-term abusers of Misplaced Pages policy with extensive block logs. I think that a reasonable solution to this issue would however be desyopping. From the user's own contributions and admin log he's shown a consistent attitude of not adhering to WP:CIVIL. He has already stated that he has no intention of changing this attitude and attempts to engage him on his talk page have resulted in the user going as far as to delete his talk page in order to remove diffs of these engagements. I think that if this were not an admin user we would have all demanded at least a block long ago.--Jersey Devil 22:14, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Sigh, nothing is hidden, the whole history is there. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 22:15, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I really don't think anything has occured that needs discussion on this board... WjBscribe 22:16, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Seems like overkill to me. Drewcifer3000 22:17, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I suggest desysopping with the user remaining in good standing. I think a nice rest (no, not an enforced Wikibreak) away from Misplaced Pages is probably a good idea at this time. Nick 22:19, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

These kinds of situations are really why we need a mandatory recall process for all admins. Regardless, I too suggest a voluntary wikibreak and users should just avoid (at least from the time being) responding on this user's talk page.--Jersey Devil 22:23, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think reporting another administrator at a noticeboard and suggesting an immediate indefinite block is productive at all, and is only likely to produce drama. Such an act of insensitivity would only inflame the situation, and likely drive away a contributor, rather than solve anything. Premature block requests instead of dispute resolution look like nothing more than drama-seeking, and are likely to drown out the legitimate concerns at hand. I suggest this thread be archived to prevent that outcome, and the people involved pursue a constructive line of discourse instead. Dmcdevit·t 22:34, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, please close this thread. If dialogue with Jeffrey doesn't result in a positive outcome, then start an RfC. The suggestion of an indef block is premature. --Akhilleus (talk) 22:42, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Rex Germanus

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

No community ban is required at this stage. All parties have been blocked in accordance w/ Misplaced Pages policies. See Outcome at ANI. -- FayssalF - 21:29, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Problem Rex has a history of being disruptive. Here is an arbitration case involving Rex. If you look at this part of the arbitration case, you'll see that he has 6 blocks since his probation has started. He has 1 block during the this case. He continues to exhausts the Misplaced Pages community. Here and here are two examples of that. If you look at his user page and his subpage, he clearly goes against this guideline. Action is clearly needed for this guy.

Solution

• Permanent block

Kingjeff 17:13, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Problem: Kingjeff is engaged in forum shopping here and here and canvassing, and isn't getting the response he wants. Thatcher131 17:14, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Maybe not from Rex himself. Kingjeff 17:18, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Problem: : IWANTHIMBLOCKED, but those bastards at ANI won't oblige. Solution: Kingjeff stops trolling. Moreschi 17:18, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

How about we just block them both and be done with it ? Nick 17:20, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not trolling at all. Kingjeff 17:23, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

What about canvassing? How many user talk pages did you drop that invitation to this page on? Bladestorm 17:24, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Ah, sorry. I should have just counted: 11 user talk pages you've canvassed. Bladestorm 17:26, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Kingjeff has rather a history of that when he isn't getting what he wants - . WjBscribe 17:28, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

You're forum shopping, badly. That counts. Moreschi 17:25, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Kingjeff: stop canvassing, right now, or else I block you, also right now. Moreschi 17:28, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

If any of you haven't noticed, this is about Rex Germanus. Not me. Kingjeff 17:29, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Wrong. Anybody with "This user can do no wrong, especially when it comes to editing Misplaced Pages." on their userpage badly needs to be blocked, IMHO. Nick 17:31, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Nice try at wiggling out: won't work. Stop forum shopping and canvassing, please. As I think has been pointed out on ANI, your claims have little merit. Moreschi 17:31, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:William_M._Connolley&diff=prev&oldid=143769539 and still it continues. Nick 17:33, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Blocked 24 hours. Moreschi 17:34, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Heh. I love this part. I really hope he read it before removing it though. (I don't mind people removing my comments, but it'd be disheartening if someone were to refuse to learn from their mistakes) Bladestorm 18:13, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Wow, that was "kurzer Prozeß". Here's what I wanted to write in the meantime: I have a much longer history with Rex than Kingjeff does, and I'm also a little surprised that this here is the fourth initiative of Kingjeff vs. Rex within a week or so, with the other two still going on, with me trying to provide some input from the top of my head. Thus I recommend to put this request here on hold or to reject the case for now. Kingjeff (and I, and others) have to learn first about the proper procedures and ways to present such a case with more patience and thorough preparation. Yet, I am convinced that someone somewhere will angrily call for a block of Rex again sooner or later, though, as Rex has made himself many enemies, and will continue to make new ones, there is few doubt. -- Matthead      O       17:46, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

See my remarks here. Thatcher131 17:48, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I have likewise a long history with Rex. This is a problem user, but not one that should be banned without going through rfar. If he continues in his present vein, he will end up with a longish block, but this is not a case of blatant abuse or one requiring instant action. His blocks will increase in length as probation continues, until or unless he learns his lesson. There is no need to short-circuit this process. dab (𒁳) 18:11, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I wonder if this entire fuss could go for libel. Because That Kingjeff tries to list my name on nearly every Wiki noticeboard there is. If anyone is seriously thinking about undergoing action note that User:Matthead is the real problem user, and a history to show for it. His anti Polish and anti Dutch attitude speak for themself.Rex 18:22, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Also, for your information. And this I swear with my hand on my heart, I do not make or seek enemies as allegated here, they find me, and when they get in the way of wikipedia being or continueing to be reliable, then problems arise. Rex 18:23, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I am not at all happy being drawn into this by Kingjeff through a post on my user page. I feel strongly for putting some restrictions on his canvassing as proposed above. For the rest, indeed I have encountered Rex, and IMHO he is stubborn and tends to overreact on German (nationalist) issues. It is however more often the aggressive/stubborn form of his editing rather than the ideas that he is adding that lands him in problems. While Rex makes enemies this way, and is not always as constructive as possible this is hardly a reason for a permanent block. Actually proposing such a block and posting this discussion seems like a directed effort to demonise an editor by the original poster (KingJeff) of this discussion. Arnoutf 18:25, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Bringing in Arnoutf is just another instance of canvassing/forum shopping/asking the other parent. On a side note, I have interacted with Rex G when we were both more or less newbie editors (solved a conflict via MSN chat) and based on that experience I agree with everything Arnoutf is saying above. (I could hardly miss this situation since I have a number of noticeboards on my watchlist). Avb 18:35, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Sanction Kingjeff instead

Looking at Kingjeff's block log, one has to wonder ... is it time for community sanctions on Kingjeff? Five 3RR blocks, two harassment blocks ... from my perspective as an uninvolved user, the only answer can be yes. I propose that he be given a one-month ban, and be placed on indefinite revert parole. Thoughts?Blueboy96 18:46, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

My only thought on the matter is that he's already currently blocked. There's no harm in seeing how he behaves once that block expires. If he causes more problems, then we can worry about it. But there's really no need to concern ourselves with too many 'what-if's. :) Bladestorm 18:48, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I just think that when you've racked up five 3RR blocks and three blocks for disruption/harassment, it's time for stronger measures. Blueboy96 19:00, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd rather not go there for the moment. There seems to be agreement that Rex can sometimes be a problem but that these problems don't warrant blocking at the present time. Kingjeff should be pointed to RFC if he wants to take action against Rex. Thatcher131 19:10, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Also, he (Kingjeff) says he's left. Bit pointless sanctioning someone who's both blocked and quit. Nil de mortuis etc. Moreschi 19:23, 10 July 2007 (UTC)