Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/HistoryBuffEr and Jayjg

I think that since HistoryBuffEr and Alberuni have reached Wikipedia, the atmosphere has become significantly worse, and this is flowing over to other areas of Wikipedia. Personally I find myself writing talk responses that are too short or even blunt, then stopping myself in midsentence saying hey, this guy isn't HistoryBuffEr, and rewritting. And I see this pattern of lack of patience and disrespect in other Wikipedians. As a result we had a number of aggressive newbies in other areas (User:Melamed, User:CheeseDreams, User:ranamim). They see and they learn. This must be stopped now, the danger is imminent. I suggest that as a temporary injunction, everyone involved in this dispute (me included, of course) would receive a three revert rule parole (and possibly a civility parole). Gady 13:59, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * I strongly second this. After dealing with User:Alberuni for an extended period of time, I found myself beggining to utilize the sort of drivel that he has. I have since terminated any communication with him until he learns to speak courteously, so that I will not be affected by him.--Josiah 16:13, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Frankly, I have borne the brunt of their incivility, and have also been affected negatively as you both describe. I hadn't noticed the pattern, but now that I see it it is troubling.  However, I don't understand how these paroles would work? Jayjg 17:03, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Jayjg, do you mean technically or how will they help? Gady 17:36, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Both, actually. Jayjg 17:41, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Well, it was a swallow question I guess. I never saw a prole in action and I don't know if it helps or not. But at least it would send a clear signal that the situation is serious. Gady 17:45, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * In the initial complaint a couple of the Arbitrators mentioned injunctions. I'm not sure what they are or how they work, but I'll try to find out more. Jayjg 15:57, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Quadell's friend-of-the-committee briefing.
I'm not sure what the protocol is here. I don't know HistoryBuffEr or Jayjg personally, and have not worked with either of them beyond what is seen on the talk pages of the various articles in dispute. I realize that I am not an arbiter, and my opinion is not binding on anyone, but I want to offer my opinion in the hopes that it will be useful to the Arbitration Committee.

1. I believe both HistoryBuffEr and Jayjg deserve some sort of censure, but I feel the two defendants have acted quite differently, and should be treated differently. Meting out identical or similar rulings on them would not, in my opinion, be fair.

2. Jayjg has engaged in multiple edit wars. He has also acted in a condescending and inflamatory war to those he feels are unlikely to respond well to civil discourse. His user page invites opposition. He encourages editors of bad faith by declaring war on them. But as for the rest of us -- the editors who are willing to work to acheive compromise -- he has no problems working civilly, compromising, or generally improving the Wikipedia environment. He can, at times, be a model Wikipedian in terms of building consensus and treating users well.

3. As a sysop, Jayjg has a higher responsibility in his treatment of users, even problem users. I believe Jayjg should be encouraged to change his outlook regarding HistoryBuffEr and others, avoid revert wars, and treat all users civilly whether they treat him civilly or not. If a statement would be rude if he said it to me, then he should not say it to anyone. Jayjg's decision should be based on the fact that he is a sysop, and must therefore choose whether to act as a sysop or not.

4. HistoryBuffEr is quite a different sort of editor. My opinions regarding him can be found on the evidence page. So long as he remains an active Wikipedia editor, he will be a continual presense before the Arbitration Committee, and he will likely drive off many helpful but thin-skinned contributers.

5. Fred Bauder has noted that this conflict is larger than the specific complaints against HistoryBuffEr and Jayjg. Because of this, it would be useful if a ruling were to made to apply to others as well. This ruling could be placed at the top of the talk pages of the articles in question. This ruling could be something along the lines of "If any user repeatedly reverts this page in order to promote one POV over another, and if that user refuses to discuss these changes productively on this talk page, then. . .", but I'm not sure what would come next. Perhaps any sysop could ban the user for 24 hours, although that would be problematic. Perhaps the user could be brought to an "arbitration fast-track", where the Arbitration Committee would simply decide whether the user did indeed violate the ruling or not, and could quickly ban the user from editing that particular page for ten days. I don't know. But these are the sorts of creative solutions that might prevent this same case coming before you again in a month's time, with different users filling the roles.

– Quadell (talk) (help)  19:52, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)

Personal Attacks in the Evidence
May I ask that Personal Attacks not be used in the Evidence? Such as "Jayjg the Rollback robot". --Josiah 17:03, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)