Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Jayjg

Check m:The Wrong Version. [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 09:16, Nov 3, 2004 (UTC)

OTOH Jayjg did revert to one side's version (not the pre-edit war version: see diff) before protecting, which admins are not supposed to do when both are equally belligerent in the edit war, which was the case here. (I've since reverted the article to the last version before the present dispute started.) I agree that this is a misuse of admin powers, but it certainly could have been an honest mistake rather than an intentional abuse. —No-One Jones ^(m) 09:24, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Actually, I thought the version I was reverting to was the version before the edit war. And I've seen other admins revert to a stable version before protecting. Jayjg 15:18, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

By the way, I'm assuming that one can revert to a stable or pre edit-war version of an article before protecting, is that correct or not? Jayjg 17:59, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Yes, one may revert to a stable version before protecting, and it seems in this case that you were just mistaken about which version was stable. I think CheeseDreams should retract the complaint. —No-One Jones ^(m) 19:12, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I am of the opinion, given some of the other edits that Jayjg has made, and a comment on his talk page by Slrubenstein, that Jayjg made the change to support his POV, and then protected it. It is possible that he made an honest mistake, but I find it odd that the version he chose should have been by Slrubenstein, whom I was having the "edit war" with, which was an edit AFTER I made my first change. CheeseDreams 19:38, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

A comment made by Slrubenstein makes you think I did it to protect a POV? I thought Slrubenstein was just reverting you to the original version; with the incredibly poor performance I've been getting on Wikipedia recently, I frankly wasn't able to sort through the whole edit history. I'm amazed I was able to revert it at all; as it was, it took me almost 25 minutes from the time I restored the older version until I was finally able to mark it as protected. Jayjg 21:11, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The comment on the talk page was the one where he asked you to support his POV, and then you reverted to his edit and protected it. This doesnt seem like a NPOV thing to do to me. I have just looked at Slrubensteins contributions list, and noted that he seems to be trying to bring lots of other people (via their talk pages) in to the argument as well, which doesn't seem NPOV either. CheeseDreams 00:21, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Slrubenstein didn't ask me to "support his POV", he said he'd "appreciate your thoughts on Cultural and Historical Background of Jesus, especially concerning my differences with Cheese". I looked, saw an edit war, and reverted to what I thought was the pre-war version. And actually, bringing lots of differing views into a dispute is often a very good way of NPOVing an article and diffusing conflict. Jayjg 17:56, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Jayjg was acting in good faith. I was having problems with CheeseCreams and did ask Jayjg to look at the page in question. In fact, he protected a version of the article that did not include many of my changes. For the record: I made a number of changes -- some were restoring material that had been deleted previously, some involved adding new content, deleting new material that I felt was vague and uninformative, and improving style. Since then CheeseDream has reverted every change I have made. At first he was uninterested in any discussion. However, I explained my changes, he responded, and I provided more explanation. Nevertheless he continued to revert every change I made. I do believe mediation will be helpful here. Slrubenstein

If you look at the talk page you will clearly see that I was interested in discussion. It is filled with my comments. CheeseDreams 00:24, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It is very hard to see that this incident is sufficient in itself for making an arbitration case, even if it was thought that Jay was acting in bad faith (and I don't think he was). Unless there was a continuing pattern of events that could not be resolved by discussion, the correct course of action was to complain on the appropriate talk page, sound off for a while, then get over it. I trust that the arbitrators will decline this case. And, from personal experience, let me note that chosing which version to protect so that everyone is happy is impossible. The admin's unhappy task is to make a decision using his/her best judgement at the time and I don't see a good reason to suspect Jay of doing otherwise. --Zero 13:32, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I have outlined my reason to suspect Jayjg of doing otherwise above. I.e. because Slrubenstein left a note on his Talk page asking Jayjg to look at the article in question, and then I note that Jayjg reverted it to Slrubenstein's version and then protected it. CheeseDreams 00:21, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Complaint and votes by arbitrators

Jayjg

This admin protected the POV version of Cultural and historical background of Jesus rather than the NPOV version. I think this is an abuse of adminship. CheeseDreams 08:53, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Further comments to Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Jayjg

Comments and votes by arbitrators (0/6/1/0)

1. Reject, while there was no basis for reverting before protecting, and doing so violated policy, it was an isolated event not a pattern of wrongful actions. Fred Bauder 13:32, Nov 3, 2004 (UTC)
2. Reject. De minimis non curat arbitor. --the Epopt 14:01, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)
3. Recuse. Jwrosenzweig 15:56, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)
4. Reject. The Cunctator 23:10, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
5. Reject. James F. (talk) 12:39, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
6. Reject. Martin 16:24, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
7. Reject. →Raul654 21:15, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)