Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Jeffrey O. Gustafson

As the initiator of the request for comment (here), I feel I should comment. My views are effectively expressed in the RfC, so I'll try to keep my statement short. I have essentially three concerns regarding the behaviour of Jeffrey O. Gustafson:

1. His edits and edit summaries reveal a steady pattern of incivility and vary from dismissive[1][2][3] to hostile[4] to outright attacks.[5][6] Though he has acknowledge that problem above, he does not seem to be willing to do anything about it. Moreover, I do not see that he will do anything as long as he subscribes to the view that he is "an executioner, not a teacher".[7]

2. He has violated the speedy deletion policy on hundreds of pages (if not more), speedily deleting untagged images, speedily deleting pages per provisions of WP:NOT, which are explicitly stated as non-criteria, and speedily deleting pages with the deletion summary "useless" (seemingly a personal criterion). He has justified these actions by invoking IAR. IAR may be invoked to justify specific actions; it should not be used as an excuse for completely bypassing established consensus-supported processes over a period of weeks and for hundreds of cases. IAR is a key principle that is to be invoked in cases where the rules prevent improvement, not where one editor simply considers himself above the rules. Hundreds of images are tagged and deleted per speedy deletion criteria I4, I5, I6, and I7 after the requisite waiting period every day ... how are the images that Jeffrey deletes any different? IAR should be invoked when it is necessary to ignore the rules for the benefit of the encyclopedia; it is not a justification for overriding consensus to satisfy personal whims.

3. He has, for the most part, ignored or dismissed all attempts to share concerns about his behaviour. This is true of his handling of comments on his talk page in early July, of his responses to the AN/I thread about him (see this and this), of his refusal to heed the unanimous negative response to his actions at the RfC, and of multiple other attempts to talk with him (see here for a partial list).

Jeffrey O. Gustafson's general attitude and manner of interacting with others, in addition to his expressed contempt for the various steps taken to resolve this dispute (also noted by John254), makes it nearly impossible to communicate effectively with him in a non-official level. Given his persistent failure to consider concerns raised by numerous editors (including administrators), I believe an arbitration case is the only remaining option at this point. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 08:10, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

In my own experience with Jeffrey, he has deleted a total of 14 images which I have uploaded, a running total of 7 of which have since been restored for one reason or another. I believe I am in the minority here, but (in my opinion) only because I have pursued the case(s) of the deleted images to get them reinstated. Drewcifer3000 17:06, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I also noticed that Jeffrey has deleted most of the images I uploaded onto most of the pages I created or did improvements on, citing CSD: I4-I6. I always put the copyright notice and the source on the pics. Duo02 *dilly-dally shilly-shally** 02:26, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

What does it signify that Jeffrey O. Gustafson has created a secondary account? Does that account also have admin privileges and if so, is it a dodge to avoid his colorful history? I'm not even sure what the policy is for secondary accounts... Jfwambaugh 16:50, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

If you have a question about the purpose of the account, you should ask the user. However, I doubt very much that the account "Mr. Gustafson" is intended to disguise the fact that the account holder is Jeffrey O. Gustafson. The "Mr. Gustafson" account has no administrator privileges. The general policy on secondary or alternate accounts can be found here. Newyorkbrad 16:55, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not hiding anything, and I have made it clear from day one that the account is mine (outside of the obvious association in name alone). If I was using another account clandestinely to influence discussions, then there would be an issue, but the account is neither clandestine, nor used in violation of our sock policies. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 17:17, 7 August 2007 (UTC)