- The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
A summary of the debate may be found at the bottom of the page.
In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 19:35, 9 January 2006 (UTC)}), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 12:03, 28 June 2024 (UTC).
Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.
I'm concerned that Gustafson has been overly harsh towards new contributors. New contributors often make mistakes - editing is quite complicated, and features such as namespaces make it easy for people to create their content in the wrong area. Gustafson recently left a "stop or block" message on a new contributor's page which I felt was quite hostile. I don't think any contributor, let alone admins, should ever leave comments like the one he left to a new user who is clearly unfamiliar with Wikipedia.
Description
Zedkatuf (talk · contribs)
Zedkatuf recently created a number of pages, in article space, with the text "This is a dis-ambiguation page. You are probably looking for information about Dezsö Futák; please try here instead." The word here was a link to his real user page, on Wikipedia. The link was formatted using the external link format (single bracket), rather than the internal link format (double brackets).
Zedkatuf created these pages at various variations of his name, presumably because his real name includes accents and it would be difficult to type in. He created six pages:
Zedkatuf also created an article about a project he is involved with at the school he teaches at, Project Galileo.
These pages were all later speedy deleted by Gustafson, the names according to CSD A3 ("No content whatsoever."), and the project as "vanity". Gustafson then left a message on Zedkatuf's talk page saying "The next time you create a fake disambiguation page with an external link to your website, you will be banned from editing."
I saw this message sometime later and thought it was quite harsh. I left a comment telling him I thought the warning was over the top, and I mentioned that there was no external link to his website (it was in fact a link to his Wikipedia user page). Gustafson later replied saying it "was [s]pam, period, hideously (and poorly) disguised at that", and that he knew what he was doing. I questioned how it was spam, to which he replied "A completely innapropriate use, by the way. And going to his user page shows external links to his personal projects. This user has no other actual productive edits outside his user page. It is spam, period." My reply to this was that I thought it was a misunderstanding of namespaces from an inexperienced editor, and I mentioned that other users including admins have both external links to their own website and redirects from other userspace pages to their real user page, for example from their real name to their user name. Gustafson replied to this implying that Zedkatuf was not really a user, due to his lack of contributions and that his attempts at redirecting had been deleted before, and that he stood by his warning as a "no brainer".
I really think the warning was far too harsh for a simple understanding of Wikipedia's namespace system. A physics teacher as it says on his user page, would be a valuable contributor on physics-related issues, but even if this was not the case, I believe that Zedkatuf was not intending to advertise his website as Gustafson claimed and definitely not worthy of a "last chance" warning. Instead, his redirect pages should have been deleted and I would also prefer that he had been welcomed to Wikipedia and given basic links to namespace information, and our guidelines on notability. Talrias (t | e | c) 19:35, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Applicable policies
- Wikipedia:Don't bite the newbies
- Wikipedia:Assume good faith
Users certifying the basis for this dispute
- Talrias (t | e | c) 19:35, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- — Essjay · Talk 20:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC) I have undeleted the article that was speedied as I don't believe it was a valid speedy. I've cleaned it up and listed it on AfD for a consensus.[reply]
Other users who endorse this summary
(sign with ~~~~)
- —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 03:00, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- A classic case where assume good faith applies. Demi T/C 23:35, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Talrias's assessment of the events seems absolutely correct to me. silsor 00:44, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Clearly a violation of WP:AFG and WP:BITE.--Sean|Black 22:29, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Chomp. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 03:28, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Petros471 18:25, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- KillerChihuahua?!? 19:32, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- BlueGoose 03:58, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I do not know any of you on a first name basis. Please refer to me as Mr. Gustafson. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 18:38, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Users who endorse this response (sign with ~~~~):
Users who feel that this response is unhelpful and unbecoming a Wikipedian. (sign with ~~~~):
- Friday (talk) 23:34, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Mike 05:20, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Stifle 20:09, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Users who feel that it is entirely apropriate to request formality in a formal process. (sign with ~~~~):
- --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 23:46, 14 January 2006
Users who wonder if there's going to be any response relevant to the actual complaint (sign with ~~~~):
- jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 03:31, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 03:40, 19 January 2006 (UTC). Also, feel free to call me "Bunch".[reply]
- KillerChihuahua?!? 19:35, 6 March 2006 (UTC) You may call me "KC" or "puppy" if you wish.[reply]
- BlueGoose 06:40, 14 March 2006 (UTC) You may call me motherf***er.[reply]
If there must be a response, then so be it. I am simply repeating what I have said elsewhere - in my view, the activities concerned were spamming - I stand by this. My saying that he was not a "user" is not de-humanizing him in the least: there are different levels of contribution, and spamming isn't really all that high up. He was not a newbie, by the way, having been here for 20 months. Deleting the Project Gallileo page was innapropriate, as it should have gone to AfD. Xoloz's comments below hit the mark. I feel this RfC was a bit much (let alone an RfAr), in light of the concerns raised. As I have said elsewhere (again), I repect the various users' rights to bring it,although I disagree with its implimentation in this case (said disagreement illustrating my lack of repsonse here). --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 18:05, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm disturbed by the claim that a user with low contributions is not a user. Users encapsulate those who read, edit, create, delete, protect and comment on any page. They cover everyone. I'm disturbed because a Wikipedian who disputes this is doing something akin to dehumanisation, and might end up using this as a platform to decry a particular user's contributions or opinions in the future.
Behind every IP edit or every user account, somewhere there's a real live person. They deserve to be acknowledged.
Endorsements
- Rob Church Talk 16:25, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Essjay · Talk 03:59, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- JYolkowski // talk 15:36, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Friday (talk) 23:35, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Demi T/C 23:35, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- [[Sam Korn]] 00:17, 15 January 2006 (UTC) naturally with the understanding that it is possible to forfeit your rights as a user. [[Sam Korn]] 00:17, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Stifle 20:10, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- OnceBitten 17:16, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Robert McClenon 21:20, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- ... with the provision that there are some 'bot editors, doing legitimate tasks for completeness or consistency, with human editor/programmers behind them. Presumably, hostile bots such as spambots and vandalbots should lose their rights through due process, as hostile humans can. But it may not be feasible to notify a bot's owner and give them a polite and helpful "fair warning" and "chance to modify behavior", as we need to do with humans. Any human wherever possible, particularly on a first set of edits. Barno 02:16, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Outside view
This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.
{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}
Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):
I personally have a an issue with the concept that one must contribute to Wikipedia in order to be considered a user of Wikipedia. There are thousands of people (I'm guessing) who use Wikipedia everyday and never contribute one word. I also have an issue with the value judgement that determines at what point someone is a user, or a user in good standing, or even a valued member of community.
Again, as far as comments go, it could very well be that someone has gotten to big for their pants, or it could be that while one person felt his message was to the point and efficient, someone else found it too harsh. Not all Wikipedians (even people in offices) communicate in the same manner. But I do believe that Mr. Gustafson needs to remember that with his poistion come responsibilities which include treating others as they would like to be treated, not as he feels they should be treated. OnceBitten 17:10, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- OnceBitten 17:10, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- While I disaggree with your decidedly (nay, humorously) hyperbolic, unfounded, and somewhat offensive assertions, I would like to thank you for calling me Mr. Gustafson. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 19:05, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Mr. Gustafson, aside from the comment "too big for their pants" which could very apply to anyone involved in this RfC, I can assure you that while you may not agree with what I have given as my opinion, or the way in which it was delivered, it is, my outside opinion. If it displeases you, then that is a decision that you have made for yourself. We can disagree on the various points, but I can assure you, if my opinion is incorrect, that I am the one who decides that point, not you or anyone else. And based on the tone of your response, you've pretty much confirmed that my opinion of you is on the money. OnceBitten 15:37, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Having happened upon this quite accidentally, I'll express a view as yet unrecorded, one with which I think most uninvolved parties would likely agree. I don't see the complaint here rising to the level that I would consider merits an RFC. Mr. Gustafson may sometimes be brusk, but I'm sure that could easily be addressed by further discussions at his talk page. I understand why the certifiers may have tired of discussions if they felt Mr. Gustafson was abrasive; although they were not required to do so, I would have recommended seeking more input from other administrators (perhaps at WP:AN) before filing this RFC, especially given that the complaint relates evidence of only one incident.
That having been said, I concur in the view that Mr. Gustafson's response was unhelpful and inappropriate. Although I typically refer to many users with proper title, it does not seem to be the community standard. In any case, even if I admit the appropriateness of the "request for formality", Mr. Gustafson absolutely should have followed this request with a substantive response to the issues of the complaint. To "request formality" and then leave off without addressing the core issue does strike me as disrespectful. A proper response should be given, and an apology wouldn't be a bad idea.
Still, in sum, this seems a minor matter, and should be settled with a dose of wiki-love, or at least, wiki-courtesy. Xoloz 08:44, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorsements
- Sounds about right. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 16:07, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Hit the target. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 18:10, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Mr Gustafson could be more diplomatic but his action was appropriate and this RFC only takes time away. Pavel Vozenilek 00:34, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse. Let Mr. Gustafson get back to new page patrol as he's one of the few users (admin or not) actually attempting to keep the influx of crap at a manageable threshhold. — Feb. 25, '06 [08:37] <freakofnurxture|talk>
- I think Xoloz is right on the money. --Hetar 21:03, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- An RfC on the basis of one incident involving (gasp!) brusqueness? Good grief. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 19:51, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- You should have seen the RfAr... --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 03:01, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Having been involved in the discussion on his talk page, I can testify that it was useless. His commentary there was as glib and dismissive as it has been elsewhere; had he acknowledged the inappropriate nature of his behavior when three well-seasoned administrators brought it to his attention, there would have been no need for an RfC. However, he did not do so; he dismissed us, and in doing so, necessitated wider community input. RfC is the mode for said input.
Likewise, had he made a response that addressed the concerns raised, rather than "kersploosh," there would have been no need for an RfAr. But when others in the community endorsed the concerns raised in the RfC, and raised concerns over his dismissive attitute towards it and the contributors that brought it, and he continued to be disrespectful and dismissive, then further steps in dispute resolution were necessitated. As mediation requires the cooperation of both parties (and as a member of the Mediation Committee, I can certify that it does indeed), and he had failed to cooperate whatsoever in resolving the issue, mediation was moot. The only other option was RfAr.
As if that were not bad enough, he continued to be dismissive and disrespectful when the issue was brought to Arbitration! Perhaps it is his decision to reject the authority of the Arbitration Committe, perhaps it is just his dismissive attitude towards the whole situation. However, to come here and finally make a response after Arbitrators have begun to vote accept in an attempt to save himself is disgraceful. He either believes that this RfC was in error, in which case, he should stand behind his disregard of it before the Arbitration Committee and accept the sanctions that come with ignoring the community's will, or he agrees that it was appropriate and should explain to the Arbitration Committee why he failed to make any meaningful response to it. But to try to slide away without tasting the fruits of his actions is just him bearing forth the status quo of his actions: disregard of the standards of this community, and betrayal of the trust placed in him as an administrator. Essjay Talk • Contact 21:26, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorsements
With respect, your own view that mediation would be fruitless doesn't obviate the wisdom of trying it. If the three admins who counselled Mr. Gustafson were seen by him as your partisans, he might have been unwilling to listen; this would not be the most mature behavior, but Wikipedia tolerates far worse before beginning an RfAr. The advantage of taking Mr. Gustafson to mediation, or to WP:AN would be that parties outside of those you (and he) immediately tend to consult would be available to judge the situation. As before, I understand your frustration, but I suggest that all avenues have not been exhausted prior to the filing of the RfAr. Further, as a relatively uninvolved party, I would suggest that such phrases as "betrayal of trust" and "dehumanizing comments", while they might express an essential truth about some harshness on Mr. Gustafson's part, are unduly charged terms not warranted by one poor incident and a poor response to it. As much as I dislike Mr. Gustafson's failure to respond initially, he did have his reasons, and is beginning to come around to reasonableness. If you will meet him halfway, and tone down the tenor of the language used in your criticism, real progress and harmony is possible here. As always, the purpose of RfC and RfAr is not punishment, but mutual understanding and community consensus. Xoloz 23:29, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion
All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.
