- Blnguyen
- Charles Matthews
- FloNight
- Fred Bauder
- Jdforrester
- Jpgordon
- Kirill Lokshin
- Mackensen
- Matthew Brown (Morven)
- Paul August
- Raul654
- SimonP
- UninvitedCompany
Away/inactive:
- Flcelloguy
- Neutrality (Ben)
Sorry if this is the wrong place, but I can't figure out what "Capabilities given only to administrators, such as page deletion, are not to be used for trivial, novel, experimental, or unexpected purposes" means.
This would seem to preclude a lot of uses of deletion... certainly I delete many trivial articles, I delete many articles for reasons I never have before (novel reasons), and how I would delete an article for an "unexpected purpose" is totally incomprehensible to me, I can't figure out what that last point in the slightest. I thought deletions were only bad if they got rid of worthwhile content, or interfered with the useful operation of Wikipedia in some way. I think this is what the wording is aiming for, but as people tend to cite arbcom cases, and the current wording is pretty dense, it might be best to revise it before people start trying to say ArbCom ruled against deleting trivially short articles or some such nonsense. -- W.marsh 22:56, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
- I can't speak on behalf of the ArbCom members, but I think "trivial" applies to the nature of the deletion rather than the nature of the page being deleted. As for "novel", I think it applies to purposes that are novel on a general scale (the Wikipedia community) rather than in terms of the experience of individual admins. At least, that's my take on it. Black Falcon ( Talk) 23:10, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
- Well, I guess, but it's still incredibly vague. Then there's the really impenetrable one... how am I supposed to use the admin tools for an "unexpected purpose"? If I get an unexpected result from some action I take, am I going to be on the short list to get desysopped? -- W.marsh 11:29, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
- To make one example up off of the top of my head, deleting a page to eliminate its history and then re-creating it with its then-current text, rather than requesting oversight on the page history for a qualifying diff, would fall under "unexpected purposes", I'd think. Note that I am by no means accusing JOG of doing this; it's just a gedankenexperiment. Jouster ( whisper) 20:14, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
- Couldn't we just say that would fall under violating the GFDL? I don't see the need to a set a precedent barring very vague and unclear things like doing something for an "unexpected purpose". -- W.marsh 00:03, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
- I'll reply since I wrote the principle. The point is that admin tools shouldn't be used for trivial purposes, particularly unimportant purposes that have nothing to do with furthering the goals of the project. That would include, for example, self-blocks to "enforce" a wikibreak or protecting some sort of personal page unrelated to the project. Novel uses are those that aren't contemplated by policy or tradition. Deleting one's talk page as a means of signaling to other users that the comments on it have been read is certainly a novel and unexpected use. Experimental uses are just that; an example would be when an admin once deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion as a means of drawing attention to the problems with our deletion processes.
The Uninvited Co.,
Inc. 18:25, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
- But many other actions could be called an unexpected, trivial, or experimental. The vast majority of them would probably be good deletions that no one would contest. In fact the ability to delete for reasons "not expected" by people who wrote CSD and so on is totally in line with WP:IAR, and it would be very bureaucratic to only let people delete for "expected" reasons. A deletion is only bad if it actually has bad consequences. -- W.marsh 19:26, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
- UC, it was Votes for Deletion, not Articles for Deletion :) Melsaran ( talk) 20:18, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm really sorry to do this, but I feel obliged to speak up about Jeffrey O. Gustafson getting desysopped. I strongly believe that there are better remedies than Jeffrey losing his bit. I'll be honest from the start, I think Jeffrey can be one hell of a jerk sometimes, but his service to wikipedia and use of his tools are second to none. He really does great work with his buttons, and taking them away would be a real loss to the community. I think Jeffrey now realises his mistakes and I have to say I've been very impressed with his constructive attitude and his attempts to work through his civility problems. I can see that you guys are worried that without this remedy, we're going to be back here in a couple of months, but it's a risk that I believe we have to take, it would be a real loss to the community if Jeffrey lost his admin tools. IMHO, a strong admonishment or caution with a firm understanding that if he appears before the committee in the future he'll lose his admin status is what is required here. If you look at the workshop page, I don't think anyone really wants to see him desysopped and there seems to be strong support for an admonishment. I hope you can consider a less severe remedy. Ryan Postlethwaite 17:38, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
- I have had my issues with Jeffrey in the past, but agree with Postlethwite. Complete desysopping would be detrimental to the project. Drewcifer3000 21:22, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
- The desysoppng is not permanent, f he is as good as you say he s, then the community should be able to trust him again, should he want to regain the tools by going through another RfA.
Viridae
Talk 01:48, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
- I think we both know viridae that If he got desysopped, then he wouldn't pass RfA again - just about any user who gets desysopped by ArbCom would have the same problem. I just don't see why Jeffrey can't have one final chance - a strong warning from the arbitration committee could be all that is needed here. Ryan Postlethwaite 17:12, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
- After some thought, I agree with Ryan. I think it's finely balanced: although he recognizes some issues, he doesn't seem to have come to grips with others yet, so he could well end up back here. However, I think it's worth giving him a chance to mend his ways before desysopping him. William Pietri 02:43, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
I feel that desysopping by the Arbcom shouldn't be too much of an issue. The Arbcom doubts whether Jeffrey still has the trust of the community. If the community still trusts Jeffrey with the bit, he can reapply for adminship. Mel sa ran (formerly Salaskаn) 12:20, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
I noticed JOG's name while I was passing through the RfA page and it rang a bell. My only contact with him came during the pet food scare where, shortly after I looked at the page which is now
2007 pet food recalls he replaced the existing page with a redirect to a new page which he had constructed from scratch, without any warning on the existing talk page since - so he claimed - he had been unaware of the existance of any Wikipedia content on the pet food recalls. Given that his action took place several weeks into a major media story it beggared belief that he could possibly think the story had gone unmentioned on Wikipedia. Now, on the whole his article was better than the existing one and I would have been inclined merely to grumble a bit about his uncollegial attitude had he admitted what he had done. But instead he responded to my disbelief by instructing me to be WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF. Somehow all of my edits on the pet food and associated talk pages from that period have disappeared from my contribution list (lost in title changes?) but I still have this comment:
- "Dunno if the next step is AN/I or RfA, but something ought to be done about JOG's high-handedness. It's not remotely believable that he thought the pet food crisis had gone unmentioned on Wikipedia so many weeks after it had hit the headlines. The logical conclusion is that he lied as a way of bypassing the necessity of attempting to reach consensus on substituting his text for the existing article. I don't care to see him blocked from editing articles on pet food, but someone who has so thoroughly undermined the possiblity of assuming that he is telling the truth oughtn't retain admin powers... Andyvphil 16:15, 2 May 2007 (UTC)"
...and from the same page:
- "...JOG claims to have independently written an article on the pet food recalls, unaware of an existing article on Wikipedia, despite including references to and images from articles that clearly referenced the existing effort... Jfwambaugh 14:16, 3 May 2007 (UTC)"
[1] Andyvphil 01:46, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
- Ugh... this was an honest mistake on my part (and the only page content dispute I've ever found myself seriously involved in in nearly three years in these parts, and strangely over an issue I didn't really care about). This complaint is from a user who has continuously assumed bad faith to the point of insinuating that I was working for the pet food companies (yeah...). Anyway, with the exception of an instance of 3RR which I regretted and apologized for, there was no administrative or editorial misconduct on my part, unless you consider being WP:BOLD a bad thing. In any event, the neutral admin (Johntex, IIRC) saw no misconduct worthy of blocking, the issue never went to RfC, the other involved editor dropped the issue, AND I haven't even looked at the page in more than three months. So, water long over the bridge at this point. This has nothing to do with anything, and this will be my only response about it. -- Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 02:13, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
- I'll plead guilty to "continuously assum[ing] bad faith" since I think there seems to no good-faith explanation (and JOG has never attempted any; from WP:AGF: "This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary."), but "insinuating that [he] was working for the pet food companies"??? Presumably Mr. Gustafson is confusing me with someone else since he would otherwise know he can't provide a diff to support such a bizarre assertion. And I, too, "dropped the issue" until I noticed his name on my way to the "Apartheid"-series RfA. My contact with him was sufficient to convince me that he should never have been made an admin, but I already noted that I have had no other experience with him as a co-editor. Andyvphil 03:12, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
There is currently no FoF on his inappropriate deletion summaries, but there is a principle on it. That seems a little weird, so I proposed this. Mel sa ran (formerly Salaskаn) 12:20, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Right now, two people are opposing the "adminship suspended for a period of 30 days", apparently because they'd prefer desysopping. This isn't going to result in no sanction at all because Arbcom can't agree on how strict to make it, right? - Amarkov moo! 04:50, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oh those cases are quite fun indeed. But here I doubt it will close that way because this case is far from a motion to close. It seems all the arbitrators agree some sort of desysopping is needed, so why would four of them vote to close the case with no remedies? They'll negotiate.
Picaroon
(t) 04:55, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
- Uh... correct me if I'm wrong here, but it looks like if it were closed as is right now, the 30 day de-sysop would occur since two of the arbcom members are saying that's their "first choice". That's how I see it anyway.
Kwsn
(Ni!) 04:18, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
- If it were closed right now, nothing at all would occur, as none of the remedies has majority support. Keep in mind that for an item to pass, it must be supported by a majority of all active arbitrators, not merely a majority of those casting a vote (of whatever sort) on that particular item.
Kirill 04:23, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
- Also note that at the end of the case, before it is closed, a clerk writes up an "implementation note" listing what has and hasn't passed, and then at least four arbitrators have to vote to close the case—thus giving them another opportunity to make sure they are comfortable with the outcome of the decision as a whole, and retreat to second-choice outcomes if necessary. This system isn't foolproof in avoiding "drafting by committee accidents," but it helps. (Personally, I have argued on the workshop for some form of admonition rather than suspension or desysopping at this stage, but among the arbitrators I seem to have convinced no one, which if nothing else should help rebut any conjecture that clerks have too much influence on the committee members. :) ) Newyorkbrad 22:15, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
- If it were closed right now, nothing at all would occur, as none of the remedies has majority support. Keep in mind that for an item to pass, it must be supported by a majority of all active arbitrators, not merely a majority of those casting a vote (of whatever sort) on that particular item.
Kirill 04:23, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
- Uh... correct me if I'm wrong here, but it looks like if it were closed as is right now, the 30 day de-sysop would occur since two of the arbcom members are saying that's their "first choice". That's how I see it anyway.
Kwsn
(Ni!) 04:18, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Is courtesy blanking really appropriate here? Given that part of the reason for the RFA was JOG's blanking of pages, it seems a little odd. Unless it is unfair to JOG, I think that every effort should be made to keep his past transparent to other users. Jfwambaugh 17:07, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
- WP:BLANK
- "Very rarely, a discussion about an article will become so heated that it may potentially cause harm to someone, such as the subject of the article. This harm can range from violation of privacy to potential libel based on statements made in the discussion, or other issues that should not be indexed in search engines. In such cases, the debate will be blanked out of courtesy, typically at the request of the person or organization in question. For AfDs, the entire debate can be replaced with the afd-privacy template; the actual content remains accessible via the edit history. In extreme cases of libel or privacy violation, the entire history of the page may be deleted. Courtesy blanking is extremely rare, and should not be performed lightly." It seems it was performed lightly. I gather JOG did get a 30-day slap on the wrist? It wasn't mentioned anywhere I saw.
Andyvphil 17:26, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
- The final decision, including the 30-day suspension of Jeffrey O. Gustafson's adminship, was announced on his talkpage, the admins noticeboard, the community sanctions noticeboard, and in the weekly arbitration report article in the Signpost. The complete decision is available in the history of the casepage and the arbitrators' discussion can be found in the page history of this page.
Newyorkbrad 17:38, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
- All of which are now archived or "courtesy blanked" in apparent violation of
WP:CBLANK. As near as I can tell, this blanking is unprecedented and terribly ironic.
Jfwambaugh 18:55, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
- The precedent, I believe, was set by
Jimbo Wales in the Badlydrawnjeff case—a case whose significance to the broader community was probably a good deal greater than this one's. There was some discussion on Jimbo's talkpage at the time and possibly on RfAr talk as well. Regards,
Newyorkbrad 19:22, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
- Still seems like a violation of policy that was not especially well justified in the sole previous case. But if nobody else cares, go right ahead. Personally, I think that if JOG had cared what showed up when people googled his name, then he should have acted with greater care.
Jfwambaugh 22:11, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
- I didn't come up with the idea myself. But I can certainly understand the view that if someone were to Google someone's name for some real-world purpose, it would not be appropriate for the first hit to be a controversy about some internal Wikipedia dispute.
Newyorkbrad 02:11, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
- It still seems that encouraging people to not get to the point of being controversial is better than sanitizing and enabling their actions. Courtesy blanking exists to mask heated discussion, not impartial review. Jfwambaugh 13:37, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
- I didn't come up with the idea myself. But I can certainly understand the view that if someone were to Google someone's name for some real-world purpose, it would not be appropriate for the first hit to be a controversy about some internal Wikipedia dispute.
Newyorkbrad 02:11, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
- Still seems like a violation of policy that was not especially well justified in the sole previous case. But if nobody else cares, go right ahead. Personally, I think that if JOG had cared what showed up when people googled his name, then he should have acted with greater care.
Jfwambaugh 22:11, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
- The precedent, I believe, was set by
Jimbo Wales in the Badlydrawnjeff case—a case whose significance to the broader community was probably a good deal greater than this one's. There was some discussion on Jimbo's talkpage at the time and possibly on RfAr talk as well. Regards,
Newyorkbrad 19:22, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
- All of which are now archived or "courtesy blanked" in apparent violation of
WP:CBLANK. As near as I can tell, this blanking is unprecedented and terribly ironic.
Jfwambaugh 18:55, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
- The final decision, including the 30-day suspension of Jeffrey O. Gustafson's adminship, was announced on his talkpage, the admins noticeboard, the community sanctions noticeboard, and in the weekly arbitration report article in the Signpost. The complete decision is available in the history of the casepage and the arbitrators' discussion can be found in the page history of this page.
Newyorkbrad 17:38, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
In all but one instance in the past, it was considered legitimate to leave arbitration decisions easily readable to casual users. This overwhelming precedent was not, as far as I know, considered to be "shaming". Since this case was based upon preventing users from easily learning JOG's history of interactions (via his talk page, contribs, etc.) it seems especially appropriate to treat him normally and not grant an exception to WP:CBLANK. Jfwambaugh 16:48, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
- Arbitration cases are about the internal workings of Wikipedia. We do not feel that they need to be read by people unfamiliar with the the internal policies and processes of Wikipedia. That they appear high on searches means that this can happen. Blanking is the simplest way to fix the problem. Anyone with a basic understanding of Wikipedia knows to look in the history so the information is there for all to see. FloNight ♥♥♥ 17:00, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
- Blnguyen
- Charles Matthews
- FloNight
- Fred Bauder
- Jdforrester
- Jpgordon
- Kirill Lokshin
- Mackensen
- Matthew Brown (Morven)
- Paul August
- Raul654
- SimonP
- UninvitedCompany
Away/inactive:
- Flcelloguy
- Neutrality (Ben)
Sorry if this is the wrong place, but I can't figure out what "Capabilities given only to administrators, such as page deletion, are not to be used for trivial, novel, experimental, or unexpected purposes" means.
This would seem to preclude a lot of uses of deletion... certainly I delete many trivial articles, I delete many articles for reasons I never have before (novel reasons), and how I would delete an article for an "unexpected purpose" is totally incomprehensible to me, I can't figure out what that last point in the slightest. I thought deletions were only bad if they got rid of worthwhile content, or interfered with the useful operation of Wikipedia in some way. I think this is what the wording is aiming for, but as people tend to cite arbcom cases, and the current wording is pretty dense, it might be best to revise it before people start trying to say ArbCom ruled against deleting trivially short articles or some such nonsense. -- W.marsh 22:56, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
- I can't speak on behalf of the ArbCom members, but I think "trivial" applies to the nature of the deletion rather than the nature of the page being deleted. As for "novel", I think it applies to purposes that are novel on a general scale (the Wikipedia community) rather than in terms of the experience of individual admins. At least, that's my take on it. Black Falcon ( Talk) 23:10, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
- Well, I guess, but it's still incredibly vague. Then there's the really impenetrable one... how am I supposed to use the admin tools for an "unexpected purpose"? If I get an unexpected result from some action I take, am I going to be on the short list to get desysopped? -- W.marsh 11:29, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
- To make one example up off of the top of my head, deleting a page to eliminate its history and then re-creating it with its then-current text, rather than requesting oversight on the page history for a qualifying diff, would fall under "unexpected purposes", I'd think. Note that I am by no means accusing JOG of doing this; it's just a gedankenexperiment. Jouster ( whisper) 20:14, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
- Couldn't we just say that would fall under violating the GFDL? I don't see the need to a set a precedent barring very vague and unclear things like doing something for an "unexpected purpose". -- W.marsh 00:03, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
- I'll reply since I wrote the principle. The point is that admin tools shouldn't be used for trivial purposes, particularly unimportant purposes that have nothing to do with furthering the goals of the project. That would include, for example, self-blocks to "enforce" a wikibreak or protecting some sort of personal page unrelated to the project. Novel uses are those that aren't contemplated by policy or tradition. Deleting one's talk page as a means of signaling to other users that the comments on it have been read is certainly a novel and unexpected use. Experimental uses are just that; an example would be when an admin once deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion as a means of drawing attention to the problems with our deletion processes.
The Uninvited Co.,
Inc. 18:25, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
- But many other actions could be called an unexpected, trivial, or experimental. The vast majority of them would probably be good deletions that no one would contest. In fact the ability to delete for reasons "not expected" by people who wrote CSD and so on is totally in line with WP:IAR, and it would be very bureaucratic to only let people delete for "expected" reasons. A deletion is only bad if it actually has bad consequences. -- W.marsh 19:26, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
- UC, it was Votes for Deletion, not Articles for Deletion :) Melsaran ( talk) 20:18, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm really sorry to do this, but I feel obliged to speak up about Jeffrey O. Gustafson getting desysopped. I strongly believe that there are better remedies than Jeffrey losing his bit. I'll be honest from the start, I think Jeffrey can be one hell of a jerk sometimes, but his service to wikipedia and use of his tools are second to none. He really does great work with his buttons, and taking them away would be a real loss to the community. I think Jeffrey now realises his mistakes and I have to say I've been very impressed with his constructive attitude and his attempts to work through his civility problems. I can see that you guys are worried that without this remedy, we're going to be back here in a couple of months, but it's a risk that I believe we have to take, it would be a real loss to the community if Jeffrey lost his admin tools. IMHO, a strong admonishment or caution with a firm understanding that if he appears before the committee in the future he'll lose his admin status is what is required here. If you look at the workshop page, I don't think anyone really wants to see him desysopped and there seems to be strong support for an admonishment. I hope you can consider a less severe remedy. Ryan Postlethwaite 17:38, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
- I have had my issues with Jeffrey in the past, but agree with Postlethwite. Complete desysopping would be detrimental to the project. Drewcifer3000 21:22, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
- The desysoppng is not permanent, f he is as good as you say he s, then the community should be able to trust him again, should he want to regain the tools by going through another RfA.
Viridae
Talk 01:48, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
- I think we both know viridae that If he got desysopped, then he wouldn't pass RfA again - just about any user who gets desysopped by ArbCom would have the same problem. I just don't see why Jeffrey can't have one final chance - a strong warning from the arbitration committee could be all that is needed here. Ryan Postlethwaite 17:12, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
- After some thought, I agree with Ryan. I think it's finely balanced: although he recognizes some issues, he doesn't seem to have come to grips with others yet, so he could well end up back here. However, I think it's worth giving him a chance to mend his ways before desysopping him. William Pietri 02:43, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
I feel that desysopping by the Arbcom shouldn't be too much of an issue. The Arbcom doubts whether Jeffrey still has the trust of the community. If the community still trusts Jeffrey with the bit, he can reapply for adminship. Mel sa ran (formerly Salaskаn) 12:20, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
I noticed JOG's name while I was passing through the RfA page and it rang a bell. My only contact with him came during the pet food scare where, shortly after I looked at the page which is now
2007 pet food recalls he replaced the existing page with a redirect to a new page which he had constructed from scratch, without any warning on the existing talk page since - so he claimed - he had been unaware of the existance of any Wikipedia content on the pet food recalls. Given that his action took place several weeks into a major media story it beggared belief that he could possibly think the story had gone unmentioned on Wikipedia. Now, on the whole his article was better than the existing one and I would have been inclined merely to grumble a bit about his uncollegial attitude had he admitted what he had done. But instead he responded to my disbelief by instructing me to be WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF. Somehow all of my edits on the pet food and associated talk pages from that period have disappeared from my contribution list (lost in title changes?) but I still have this comment:
- "Dunno if the next step is AN/I or RfA, but something ought to be done about JOG's high-handedness. It's not remotely believable that he thought the pet food crisis had gone unmentioned on Wikipedia so many weeks after it had hit the headlines. The logical conclusion is that he lied as a way of bypassing the necessity of attempting to reach consensus on substituting his text for the existing article. I don't care to see him blocked from editing articles on pet food, but someone who has so thoroughly undermined the possiblity of assuming that he is telling the truth oughtn't retain admin powers... Andyvphil 16:15, 2 May 2007 (UTC)"
...and from the same page:
- "...JOG claims to have independently written an article on the pet food recalls, unaware of an existing article on Wikipedia, despite including references to and images from articles that clearly referenced the existing effort... Jfwambaugh 14:16, 3 May 2007 (UTC)"
[1] Andyvphil 01:46, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
- Ugh... this was an honest mistake on my part (and the only page content dispute I've ever found myself seriously involved in in nearly three years in these parts, and strangely over an issue I didn't really care about). This complaint is from a user who has continuously assumed bad faith to the point of insinuating that I was working for the pet food companies (yeah...). Anyway, with the exception of an instance of 3RR which I regretted and apologized for, there was no administrative or editorial misconduct on my part, unless you consider being WP:BOLD a bad thing. In any event, the neutral admin (Johntex, IIRC) saw no misconduct worthy of blocking, the issue never went to RfC, the other involved editor dropped the issue, AND I haven't even looked at the page in more than three months. So, water long over the bridge at this point. This has nothing to do with anything, and this will be my only response about it. -- Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 02:13, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
- I'll plead guilty to "continuously assum[ing] bad faith" since I think there seems to no good-faith explanation (and JOG has never attempted any; from WP:AGF: "This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary."), but "insinuating that [he] was working for the pet food companies"??? Presumably Mr. Gustafson is confusing me with someone else since he would otherwise know he can't provide a diff to support such a bizarre assertion. And I, too, "dropped the issue" until I noticed his name on my way to the "Apartheid"-series RfA. My contact with him was sufficient to convince me that he should never have been made an admin, but I already noted that I have had no other experience with him as a co-editor. Andyvphil 03:12, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
There is currently no FoF on his inappropriate deletion summaries, but there is a principle on it. That seems a little weird, so I proposed this. Mel sa ran (formerly Salaskаn) 12:20, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Right now, two people are opposing the "adminship suspended for a period of 30 days", apparently because they'd prefer desysopping. This isn't going to result in no sanction at all because Arbcom can't agree on how strict to make it, right? - Amarkov moo! 04:50, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oh those cases are quite fun indeed. But here I doubt it will close that way because this case is far from a motion to close. It seems all the arbitrators agree some sort of desysopping is needed, so why would four of them vote to close the case with no remedies? They'll negotiate.
Picaroon
(t) 04:55, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
- Uh... correct me if I'm wrong here, but it looks like if it were closed as is right now, the 30 day de-sysop would occur since two of the arbcom members are saying that's their "first choice". That's how I see it anyway.
Kwsn
(Ni!) 04:18, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
- If it were closed right now, nothing at all would occur, as none of the remedies has majority support. Keep in mind that for an item to pass, it must be supported by a majority of all active arbitrators, not merely a majority of those casting a vote (of whatever sort) on that particular item.
Kirill 04:23, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
- Also note that at the end of the case, before it is closed, a clerk writes up an "implementation note" listing what has and hasn't passed, and then at least four arbitrators have to vote to close the case—thus giving them another opportunity to make sure they are comfortable with the outcome of the decision as a whole, and retreat to second-choice outcomes if necessary. This system isn't foolproof in avoiding "drafting by committee accidents," but it helps. (Personally, I have argued on the workshop for some form of admonition rather than suspension or desysopping at this stage, but among the arbitrators I seem to have convinced no one, which if nothing else should help rebut any conjecture that clerks have too much influence on the committee members. :) ) Newyorkbrad 22:15, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
- If it were closed right now, nothing at all would occur, as none of the remedies has majority support. Keep in mind that for an item to pass, it must be supported by a majority of all active arbitrators, not merely a majority of those casting a vote (of whatever sort) on that particular item.
Kirill 04:23, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
- Uh... correct me if I'm wrong here, but it looks like if it were closed as is right now, the 30 day de-sysop would occur since two of the arbcom members are saying that's their "first choice". That's how I see it anyway.
Kwsn
(Ni!) 04:18, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Is courtesy blanking really appropriate here? Given that part of the reason for the RFA was JOG's blanking of pages, it seems a little odd. Unless it is unfair to JOG, I think that every effort should be made to keep his past transparent to other users. Jfwambaugh 17:07, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
- WP:BLANK
- "Very rarely, a discussion about an article will become so heated that it may potentially cause harm to someone, such as the subject of the article. This harm can range from violation of privacy to potential libel based on statements made in the discussion, or other issues that should not be indexed in search engines. In such cases, the debate will be blanked out of courtesy, typically at the request of the person or organization in question. For AfDs, the entire debate can be replaced with the afd-privacy template; the actual content remains accessible via the edit history. In extreme cases of libel or privacy violation, the entire history of the page may be deleted. Courtesy blanking is extremely rare, and should not be performed lightly." It seems it was performed lightly. I gather JOG did get a 30-day slap on the wrist? It wasn't mentioned anywhere I saw.
Andyvphil 17:26, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
- The final decision, including the 30-day suspension of Jeffrey O. Gustafson's adminship, was announced on his talkpage, the admins noticeboard, the community sanctions noticeboard, and in the weekly arbitration report article in the Signpost. The complete decision is available in the history of the casepage and the arbitrators' discussion can be found in the page history of this page.
Newyorkbrad 17:38, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
- All of which are now archived or "courtesy blanked" in apparent violation of
WP:CBLANK. As near as I can tell, this blanking is unprecedented and terribly ironic.
Jfwambaugh 18:55, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
- The precedent, I believe, was set by
Jimbo Wales in the Badlydrawnjeff case—a case whose significance to the broader community was probably a good deal greater than this one's. There was some discussion on Jimbo's talkpage at the time and possibly on RfAr talk as well. Regards,
Newyorkbrad 19:22, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
- Still seems like a violation of policy that was not especially well justified in the sole previous case. But if nobody else cares, go right ahead. Personally, I think that if JOG had cared what showed up when people googled his name, then he should have acted with greater care.
Jfwambaugh 22:11, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
- I didn't come up with the idea myself. But I can certainly understand the view that if someone were to Google someone's name for some real-world purpose, it would not be appropriate for the first hit to be a controversy about some internal Wikipedia dispute.
Newyorkbrad 02:11, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
- It still seems that encouraging people to not get to the point of being controversial is better than sanitizing and enabling their actions. Courtesy blanking exists to mask heated discussion, not impartial review. Jfwambaugh 13:37, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
- I didn't come up with the idea myself. But I can certainly understand the view that if someone were to Google someone's name for some real-world purpose, it would not be appropriate for the first hit to be a controversy about some internal Wikipedia dispute.
Newyorkbrad 02:11, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
- Still seems like a violation of policy that was not especially well justified in the sole previous case. But if nobody else cares, go right ahead. Personally, I think that if JOG had cared what showed up when people googled his name, then he should have acted with greater care.
Jfwambaugh 22:11, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
- The precedent, I believe, was set by
Jimbo Wales in the Badlydrawnjeff case—a case whose significance to the broader community was probably a good deal greater than this one's. There was some discussion on Jimbo's talkpage at the time and possibly on RfAr talk as well. Regards,
Newyorkbrad 19:22, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
- All of which are now archived or "courtesy blanked" in apparent violation of
WP:CBLANK. As near as I can tell, this blanking is unprecedented and terribly ironic.
Jfwambaugh 18:55, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
- The final decision, including the 30-day suspension of Jeffrey O. Gustafson's adminship, was announced on his talkpage, the admins noticeboard, the community sanctions noticeboard, and in the weekly arbitration report article in the Signpost. The complete decision is available in the history of the casepage and the arbitrators' discussion can be found in the page history of this page.
Newyorkbrad 17:38, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
In all but one instance in the past, it was considered legitimate to leave arbitration decisions easily readable to casual users. This overwhelming precedent was not, as far as I know, considered to be "shaming". Since this case was based upon preventing users from easily learning JOG's history of interactions (via his talk page, contribs, etc.) it seems especially appropriate to treat him normally and not grant an exception to WP:CBLANK. Jfwambaugh 16:48, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
- Arbitration cases are about the internal workings of Wikipedia. We do not feel that they need to be read by people unfamiliar with the the internal policies and processes of Wikipedia. That they appear high on searches means that this can happen. Blanking is the simplest way to fix the problem. Anyone with a basic understanding of Wikipedia knows to look in the history so the information is there for all to see. FloNight ♥♥♥ 17:00, 5 September 2007 (UTC)