Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jmfangio-Chrisjnelson

Case Opened on 00:12, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Case Closed on 15:10, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Watchlist all case pages: 1, 2, 3, 4

Please do not edit this page directly unless you wish to become a participant in this case. (All participants are subject to Arbitration Committee decisions, and the ArbCom will consider each participant's role in the dispute.) Comments are very welcome on the Talk page, and will be read, in full. Evidence, no matter who can provide it, is very welcome at /Evidence. Evidence is more useful than comments.

Arbitrators, the parties, and other editors may suggest proposed principles, findings, and remedies at /Workshop. That page may also be used for general comments on the evidence. Arbitrators will then vote on a final decision in the case at /Proposed decision.

Once the case is closed, editors may add to the as needed, but closed cases should not be edited otherwise. Please raise any questions at Requests for arbitration.

Involved parties

 * (now blocked as sockpuppet of banned user

Requests for comment

 * Society, law and sex request for comment on Template talk:Infobox NFLactive
 * User request for comment on Chrisjnelson

Statement by Seraphimblade
While I believe that both Jmfangio and Chrisjnelson do have a wish to improve the encyclopedia, at this time, their behavior regarding one another has been wholly unacceptable. Problems include revert warring, , hostility, incivility, and personal attacks in any discussion in which the two engage, (, as examples but by no means an exhaustive list, see the above-listed talk pages as well), and a general lack of respect and assumption of good faith. It appears that at this time is nowhere near resolution, and attempts at intervention and discussion from other editors have failed to solve the problem, as have the above listed attempts at dispute resolution. ArbCom cannot, of course, decide the content issues on which the two disagree, but at this point, I believe that arbitration is the only step which will stop the creation of a poisonous atmosphere at several pages from the bickering and edit warring. Seraphimblade Talk to me 09:09, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

As an addendum to the arbitrators who wished to see a user request for comment, this has now been attempted as well, and does not seem to have resolved the situation. Seraphimblade Talk to me 21:06, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Jmfangio
It essentially boils down to this: weeks of discussion have been futile. Said user is convinced that his way is not only right, but that it is the only right. Several others have presented a valid/viable alternative. The fact that both sides are valid results in edit conflicts (as confirmed by a person not named in this case). An impartial solution has been proposed, and despite no other suggestion, it has been rejected by Chrisjnelson simply because he feels he has the only correct "answer". The neutral solution seems acceptable to most "commentators", and they have agreed that the best way to satisfy Chris and "the other side" is to find a neutral solution. The arbcom would have been asked to address the behavior issues revolving around this, not the content. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat 09:32, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

What else can I do to move this forward? The tension continues to escalate and now others are getting attacked. The hostility, wikistalking, and edit warring is starting to spread to other articles. Can anything be done to expedite this process? Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat 19:46, 8 August 2007 (UTC
 * Status??

The rfc was closed and nothing really came of it. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat 02:11, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * RfC


 * The RFC was in fact opened up again by the "closing editor". Some more posts have been made but I have voluntereed to enter into a joint topic ban while this matter is addressed by the ArbCom.  I will not "agree to it" if it is not extended to the other user.  here is the statement. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  07:07, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Chrisjnelson
First, I will explain the debate as I see it. I believe in listing out Pro Bowl years in a players’ infobox. Further, I believe that the link should look something like this 2005, or in other words, the link should ‘’show’’ one year and link to the Pro Bowl the following calendar year. Jmfangio feels that this is confusing to some, and that there is an equally valid argument to keep the years the same, as in 2006. As a compromise, he feels all infoboxes should only list the number of total Pro Bowl selections, as in 8x Pro Bowl selection or something to that effect. It is my belief that the two sides Jmfangio feels to be valid are not in fact equal. It is my intent to show that my style of edit, the kind in my first example, is much more valid and accurate than the alternative, and thereby showing a “compromise” to be unnecessary. Keep in mind that linking Pro Bowl years as I do has been a fairly common practice here at Wikipedia, and that this dispute only arose with this new template on which I collaborated with Jmfangio. To get a visual idea of each side, see these:

-Junior Seau – This is my style of edit in use. Each Pro Bowl selection uses the regular season year, but links to the correct Pro Bowl.

- – this is the side Jmfangio feels has equal validity to my own. You can see that years shown are identical to the ones in each Pro Bowl linked.

-Brett Favre – this is Jmfangio’s compromise in use. Only the number of Pro Bowl selections is shown, with no individual years.

Now, a basic explanation as to why I link the Pro Bowls the way I do. As you may or may not know, the NFL’s regular season begins in September and runs through the end of the year. The Pro Bowl occurs in early February, after the Super Bowl. Therefore, the years of the regular season and corresponding Pro Bowl are not identical, but rather the Pro Bowl is in the calendar year after any given season.

Please note that I am not arguing against the naming of Pro Bowl articles or to how they are referred. The 2007 Pro Bowl was in fact the one played this past February, and I think we can all agree on that fact. But what I am saying is that, when listing Pro Bowl years in a player’s infobox, one is not referring to the game itself. Rather, the years are there to list the SELECTIONS of that individual player. I personally feel that a list of Pro Bowl years in an infobox is basically a sentence saying “Player X was select to the Pro Bowl in this season, this season, this season, etc.” In that case, the year should correspond with the regular season in which the player earned the Pro Bowl selection.

For example: In the 2006 regular season, Peyton Manning was rewarded with a selection to the Pro Bowl (which took place in February 2007). However, the regular season in which he earned he selection, and the selection itself, occurred in 2006. As evidence, here is a link, dated December 18, stating that “The teams will be announced at 4 p.m. ET Tuesday, Dec. 19 on NFL Network.” This proves that the selection for the 2007 Pro Bowl began, and was completed, during the 2006 season.

This is why it is factually inaccurate to list 2007 in Peyton Manning infobox under Pro Bowl selections. He has not played in the 2007 regular season, and no voting or selecting has taken place in 2007. Peyton Manning was in fact a Pro Bowl selection in 2006, and played in the 2007 Pro Bowl. His selection was a REWARD for the 2006 season, and without that season he could not have played in the 2007 Pro Bowl. Essentially, it was the 2006 regular season that earned him the reward of a Pro Bowl selection – a selection which occurred in 2006.

I must say I am astounded this has even become such a giant issue, because those that follow or cover the sport nearly always refer to it this way. Here are some examples of player bios on their official teams’ websites, and how they convey the Pro Bowl information:


 * Peyton Manning – Colts.com bio – The very first sentence states: “Started 16 games for ninth consecutive season in 2006 and earned seventh career Pro Bowl selection (1999-2000, 2002-06).” A look at the season-by-season highlights shows that these years mentioned in the first sentence correspond with regular seasons, NOT years of Pro Bowls.


 * Michael Vick - AtlantaFalcons.com bio – The first section has a paragraph which states “Earned his second consecutive and third overall Pro Bowl nod in 2005” and the 2002, 2004 and 2005 seasons sections all indicate that the Pro Bowl selections occurred during these regular seasons.


 * Jason Taylor – MiamiDolphins.com bio – Not far down this page, there is a section that states “CAREER PRO BOWL SELECTIONS: 5 (2000, 2002, 2004, 2005, 2006).” As you can see by looking at the year-by-year highlights, these years correspond to regular seasons, not Pro Bowl years.


 * Brian Urlacher – ChicagoBears.com bio – in the first paragraph there is a sentence that states: “Fifth player in franchise history to receive Pro Bowl selections in each of his first 4 NFL seasons.” This sentence’s wording clearly goes along with my style of edit, and there is further support of this on that page for you to see but I feel this is sufficient.


 * Ray Lewis – BaltimoreRavens.com bio – Various evidence to support my kind of edit, for example: “Ray earned his 5th consecutive Pro Bowl in 2001 when he led the NFL in tackles (196).” Again, using the regular season year when referring to the selection.

I could go on and on, and if you are still unsure I urge you to look up any former Pro Bowler on any official team website and I’ll wager you’ll find more of the same. Google something like “earned Pro Bowl selection” and see what you find. I did, and what I found were various news articles from all kinds of sources referring to selections by the season. From ESPN to Yahoo to the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel. This is common practice. The Pro Bowl may be the year after the regular season, but Pro Bowl selections refer to regular seasons themselves.

I believe Jmfangio’s objection to my method is that that it is confusing to the common reader. On this, I disagree. The common reader will see the years of selection and will probably naturally assume it was those regular seasons that he was selected in. But if he clicks on the links, he will also be taken to the correct Pro Bowl for those selections. I will admit that occasionally, someone will see this kind of edit in place and will change the years to match each Pro Bowl. But I do not believe it occurs enough to warrant tossing out years all together. I for one am willing to watch these pages, revert them if someone unknowingly changes the years to be incorrect and post on their talk pages explaining why the original edit was correct. I do not believe that we should avoid putting in accurate information on the chance an uninformed person might come along every once in a while and change it. If we did that, there would be no Wikipedia.

I’m not saying Jmfangio’s compromise of “Pro Bowl selection (x8)” is wrong. It’s not, and there’s nothing wrong with it. But it is my belief that having the years in the infoboxes enhances the articles, and as I have shown they are factually accurate and can be sourced as well. My proposal is to basically continue what we’ve been doing. This has been pretty standard practice for years and I see no reason to discontinue it based on what I feel is one person’s misunderstanding of the situation. No offense to you, Jmfangio, but I do feel you are incorrect in saying both my way and the way with matching years are equal. Research pretty much shows this to be true. If there were differing and equally valid views on how to list years, then Jmfangio’s compromise would definitely be satisfactory. But has been my goal to show that one view is much more accurate and valid than any other, and I feel I’ve done that sufficiently here.► Chris Nelson  18:23, 7 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I have a feeling that I'm going to lose this thing, possibly in large part to my behavior of late. But it's unfortunate, because I know I'm right on this and this is what is best for these football articles.► Chris Nelson  18:23, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (6/1/0/0)

 * Accept to consider behavior of all involved. Kirill 18:05, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Decline. I would like to see a user-conduct RFC first. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 03:53, 10 August 2007 (UTC}
 * Decline, per UnivitedCompany. Paul August &#9742; 01:27, 14 August 2007 (UTC) Accept. Paul August &#9742; 16:52, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Accept. I don't think any more preliminary steps at dispute resolution are going to fix this. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 22:57, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Accept. I think we can help here as other good faith attempts to resolve the issue seem to have failed. FloNight 23:05, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Accept. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 04:29, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Accept. James F. (talk) 14:55, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

=Final decision = All numbering based on /Proposed decision (vote counts and comments are there as well)

Courtesy
1) Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably and calmly in their dealings with other users. Insulting and intimidating other users harms the community by creating a hostile environment. Personal attacks are not acceptable.


 * Passed 7-0 at 15:10, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Consensus
2) Wikipedia works by building consensus through the use of polite discussion. The dispute resolution process is designed to assist consensus-building when normal talk page communication has not worked. Sustained edit-warring is not an appropriate method of resolving disputes, and is wasteful of resources and destructive to morale.


 * Passed 7-0 at 15:10, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Compliance
3) Wikipedia editors are expected to make a good-faith effort to comply with policy.


 * Passed 7-0 at 15:10, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Locus of dispute
1) The original dispute revolves around Infobox NFLactive, and particularly focuses on how certain fields in this template should be formatted.


 * Passed 7-0 at 15:10, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Chrisjnelson
2) has engaged in sustained edit-warring  and incivility, and has demonstrated an unwillingness to cooperate with other editors.


 * Passed 7-0 at 15:10, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Jmfangio
3) has engaged in sustained edit-warring  and incivility, and has demonstrated an unwillingness to cooperate with other editors.


 * Passed 6-0 with 1 abstention at 15:10, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry
4) Jmfangio is a checkuser-verified sockpuppet of the banned User:Tecmobowl.


 * Passed 7-0 at 15:10, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Chrisjnelson restricted for six months
3.1) is subject to a comprehensive editing restriction for six months. He limited to one revert per page per week (excepting obvious vandalism), and is required to discuss any content reversions on the page's talk page. If he exceeds this limit, fails to discuss a content reversion, or makes any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, he may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling below.


 * Passed 6-0 at 15:10, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Enforcement by block
1) Should any user subject to an editing restriction violate that restriction, they may be briefly blocked, up to a week in the event of repeated violations. After 5 blocks, the maximum block shall increase to one month. All blocks are to be logged at Requests for arbitration/Jmfangio-Chrisjnelson.


 * Passed 7-0 at 15:10, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Log of blocks and bans
Log any block, ban or extension under any remedy in this decision here. Minimum information includes name of administrator, date and time, what was done and the basis for doing it.
 * September 28, 2007, Chrisjnelson warned for admitted violations of the Arbitration Committee ruling, which he claimed were inadvertent and would not occur again, and advised that any additional violations will result in a block. Newyorkbrad 02:35, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
 * October 2, 2007, 24 hour block for WP:CIVIL. Durova  Charge! 04:28, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


 * October 8, 2007, 24 hour block for 2RR on Template:New England Patriots roster. Unrelated and subsequent to 09/28 warning above. --CBD 12:17, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * October 17, 2007, 1 week block on Chrisjnelson for WP:CIVIL. Durova  Charge! 02:57, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
 * December 26, 2007, 1 week block on Chrisjnelson for WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, and violation of 1RR restriction on Tyler Palko. —Wknight94 (talk) 13:54, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
 * March 1, 2008, 72 hour block for violation of 1RR restriction at Trent Green. GRBerry 22:53, 1 March 2008 (UTC)