Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jmfangio-Chrisjnelson/Evidence

Anyone, whether directly involved or not, may add evidence to this page. Please make a header for your evidence and sign your comments with your name.

When placing evidence here, please be considerate of the Arbitrators and be concise. Long, rambling, or stream-of-consciousness rants are not helpful. Over-long evidence (other than in exceptional cases) is likely to be refactored and trimmed to size by the Clerks.

As such, it is extremely important that you use the prescribed format. Submitted evidence should include a link to the actual page diff, or to a short page section; links to the page itself are not sufficient. Never link to a page history or an editor's contributions, as those will probably have changed by the time people click on your links to view them. Please make sure any page section links are permanent. See simple diff and link guide.

This page is not for general discussion - for that, see talk page.

Be aware that Arbitrators may at times rework this page to try to make it more coherent. If you are a participant in the case or a third party, please don't try to re-factor the page, let the Arbitrators do it. If you object to evidence which is inserted by other participants or third parties please cite the evidence and voice your objections within your own section of the page. It is especially important to not remove evidence presented by others. If something is put in the wrong place, please leave it for the Arbitrators to move.

Arbitrators may analyze evidence and other assertions at /Workshop. /Workshop provides for comment by parties and others as well as Arbitrators. After arriving at proposed principles, findings of fact or remedies, Arbitrators vote at /Proposed decision. Only Arbitrators may edit /Proposed decision.

Mediation closure
User:Chrisjnelson accepts community enforceable mediation here.

User:Jmfangio accepts community enforceable mediation here.

Chrisjnelson unable to compromise
Mediator offers solution set here at this diff explaining compromise and opening for comments from editors to work out dispute.

Editor does not understand the WP:CEM, note that information in regards to mediation in this form is available at WP:CEM on this revision which was current at acceptance of CEM.

Mediation closes Nelson won't budge and closure explained further.

Chrisjnelson uncivil after mediation closure
After the closure, and after being asked to stop Nelson continues to taunt the other disputant. This is a revision of WP:CIV at that time.

Evidence presented by User:Jmfangio
* Noting that I will be presenting my evidence in a few days, as I need to collect and present it. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat 05:07, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * As I continue to work on the evidence, I am gathering, organizing, and sorting information at User:Jmfangio/arbcom evidence. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat 10:19, 26 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Evidence is located at User:Jmfangio/arbcom evidence. I continue to update and refine the information there, but it is ready for viewing - although it could be considered incompelte because I will be adding more. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat 19:09, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


 * User:Jmfangio/arbcom evidence - I have prepared a page for his evidence; it is only a partial (and a very partial list) at that. I will be glad to refractor it here or perhaps create a subpage.  The situation with CJN continues to mushroom and I'm having a hard enough time keeping up with all the old edits to start working on the new ones.  I continue to leave articles after he follows me to them - but more importantly - he continues his abusive behavior in interactions with other editors.  I have enough positive things going that i don't want to spend too much more time gathering evidence.  If anyone feels that more evidence is needed, please let me know and I will gather it - but at this time i feel the evidence is overwhelming. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  22:34, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Examples of extreme incivility by CJN
This edit summary says it all. He went on to follow this with some comments about how I lie and such, making it even more troubling. This person has no place on wiki. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat 03:12, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Continued attacks
In recent days, CJN has continued his behavior - recently upsetting numerous editors. I have filed another WP:ANI because of the situation. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat 22:16, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Response to Seriphamblade's 3.3
I find [|this] statement poorly supported. First and foremost - i have not been uncivil to other editors. There is perhaps one other editor that I was involved with a heated discussion with - it had a cursory involvement with this situation. However,two of us are on excellent terms right now (i'm sure he would say the same thing). By his own admission - it seems he was surprised by my ability to not attack him. Did we get mildly uncivil - possibly - but i think that's more for the two of us to deal with. This situation is totally different - and in fact, my evidence (which i'm still collecting) will show that the incivility toward others applies to the other party. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat 18:32, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Rebutal to B's Evidence
It appears that a point by point rebutal of his claims is needed. Not being familiar with every aspect of this - if this should go somehwere else, lmk.

It should be noted that B fails to acknowledge that he has acted as an interested party and an admin in this situation, something that should be considered - again as I am still putting all this evidence together, it will be verifiable later. He has a pre-existing relationship with the information and user Chrisjnelson; therefor, the "edits" he has used as "proof" should be reviewed with more context.


 * Moving of content within Category:American football positions The move that i did was not even suggested by me - it was suggested by others and I simply carried it out per their request. [|Here] is that discussion and you will see that I did not even bring that up.  It was suggested by  and supported by  in that section. And most importantly Chrisjnelson seemed to agree with it at the time.
 * Editing of others comments. The statment about the editing of other's comments is troubling to me. It is clear that I did, I'm just not sure why.  I truly have no idea how that happened and would suspect it was because i was copying and pasting text back and forth during my response (it's happened before).   never broached the topic with me and this is the first time I have heard of it. Why is this given as evidence when there has never been a word to me about it (unless i'm forgetting something) Why is this the first time it has been brought to my attention?
 * Wrong version - I did not ask for the wrong version to be protected - i asked for the version where consensus was in place. I was unable to edit for a few days because of an incident with Ksy (which has now been resolved). Chrisjnelson knew this (as my evidence will show) and he then circumvented the open discussion and inserted the text and then had the version locked.  If you actually read the edits that follow - you will see that I was told two different things by two different admins - one said "don't use the edit protect - go use the RFPP page ; and another told me the exact opposite".

Claims of unwillingness to discuss by B
I am clearly willing to discuss things - so this claim seems somewhat conflicting. Chris has said repeatedly that he wanted the box the way he wanted as evidence by this: "I gotta say I really wasn't expecting for any debates about this, I just needed someone to help me create the infobox I envisioned.►Chris Nelson 15:38, 22 July 2007 (UTC)".
 * Alternative box development - Chris had a multitude of issues with the box, as he had widespread issues with the box, i see nothing wrong with suggesting that create an alternative version. This had nothing to do with me and everything to do with Chris' goals (to have an infobox that was created as he wanted it.  It is a response to WP:OWN not an extension of it.
 * Removal from discussions - Per WP:DR I attempted to disengage for a while.
 * 'The reinstitution of the "wrong version" The request was done because of conflicting advice - as i worked it out with MzM, I'm not sure it has any real relevance. I didn't war with him, didn't call him names, I just tried to get something edited and did so through an avenue available.
 * Claim of "refusal to discuss" - While individual statements may be taken one way or the other, the general problem was that Chris wanted to dictate how, when, and where people would discuss things. He wanted to have extensive discussions on numerous "issues" at once.  This is why I behaved as I did.  I refuse to participate in a multitude of conversations on one topic at once because it is next to impossible to logically follow.  I am happy to discuss every topic until their hearts desire - but it is unreasonable to expect that every single issue should be discussed at one time.
 * Chris' patience proves X,Y,orZ. Chris waited a half an hour for comments on a change to an infobox (not an article - an infobox0.  Considering how he was aware that many discussions were taking place, that seems unreasonable to say - he was doing all he could to keep the peace.
 * WP:STRAW Chrisjnelson used a poll early in the process and I stated it was faulty. I did not amend it or make changes to it.   The poll was presented very early on - and this is in direct conflict with WP:DR and WP:STRAW.  The poll in question (where comments were struck by me), was not "presented" until well after DR had been attempted. Chris then tried to change said poll to his liking which is totally against WP:STRAW.  He was more than welcome to cite his reasons why he felt the poll was fault (as I had when the early one was run), but changing the poll to meet your needs (AFTER IT HAD STARTED) is not appropriate.
 * B instituting editprotected requests - This speaks specifically to my previous reservations about how information is being presented. If you are involved in a discussion - then you should not be using your administrative capabilities to implement changes.  Considering the fact that B had comments like this on his talk page; and considering that he was notified of an RFM (started by me) here - It might be good to consider those relevant points during the presentation of "evidence"?
 * My behavior was reactive to that of Chrisjnelsons. I have always wanted to follow the WP:DR processes - but Chrisjnelson refuses.  As Chris had overtly violated WP:OWN, I did what I had to do to keep the thing "somewhat under wraps".  You are accusing me of implementing "my version" when I had already instituted "features" that i was adamantly against - I just compromised and shut my mouth.  See: Inclusion of Height and Weight, Team Colors, Use of statistics, and more. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  22:43, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Gtown05 as discussed by B
There was a sock case opened at Suspected_sock_puppets/70.143.68.157 which B has commented on. I was not edit warring, i was protecting against an obvious sock. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat 22:11, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Response to Jddphd
I see absolutely nothing wrong with the first diff link. The second diff link shows that I have had an incredibly difficult time discussing things with the other user because he fails to behave. I was addressing him directly and I do believe that 20-30 ongoing topics on a single talk page is excessive. The request to slow down was more than appropriate.

The third diff shows absolutely no signs of holding the template hostage. You will in fact see that I am the one that moved the article to the mainspace. Time and time again my point was the same: The template should be the result of good, friendly discussion, and represent the opinions of the community as a whole. One user decided to ignore others, and I was the one who put up a fight when DR was ignored. The incidents were reported repeatedly and we have again gotten to a point where CJN has been "suspended" for personal actions. The later differences do not implicate me as I can tell. They continue to show a desire for discussion and group collaboration, the very heart of wikipedia.

Do you really think I'm the one causing the problems there? JmFangio| ►Chat 21:40, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Rebutal to resisting WP:COOL
It appears that people have said i was unwilling to wait yet you will see in the diff provided by Jddphd - i did in fact opt to avoid editing the topic for some time. You will see in that difference "I am not going to be editing articles until this dispute can be resolved. I will however, be available for discussion and such. The template is locked, so that solves "part" of the problem. I will be happy to request an unblock if we can hammer out some of these issues. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat 22:42, 28 July 2007 (UTC)". The next post was made by CJN and stated "I will be editing as normal.► Chris Nelson  22:49, 28 July 2007 (UTC)"

Please explain how this can be interpreted as anything other than me trying to let the situation cool down? JmFangio| ►Chat 21:43, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


 * You avoided editing the template, and then you went right back to edit warring in articles. The history here shows it.


 * Now please stay off my talk page. What's done is done here. ArbCom is voting. If they find you at fault (which seems an equally imminent and inescapable conclusion) then at some point in time you (and he) are going to need to stop blaming everyone else for what you've done. jddphd (talk · contribs) 00:10, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * You have done a poor job of presenting information. I did not go immediately back to edit warring,  and perhaps you should do a bit more time researching this and see what happened.  I stayed off all article topic pages for a few days - while i participated in discussions.  Again, if you want to present information to arbcom, please do so.  But don't say "both editors resisted" when the exact point you cited shows me saying that i was stopping for the time being and CJN was going to continue.  You keep overlooking the fact that I was the one who went to DR every single time and he was the one who ignored it every single time.  I digress and it just isn't necessary.  In the future, please don't cite pieces of evidence that show everything but what you are claiming they say. JmFangio| ►Chat  00:19, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * A couple days? Obviously it didn't work since the two of you were back in the thick of it on Brett Favre 3 days after. By the way, please explain to me the purpose of bringing this to light NOW when I originally posted it more than a week ago? Please stop Juan. You can continue believing you're the aggrieved party if you like, but you haven't exactly bathed yourself in glory. If anything, you've stooped to the same level. jddphd (talk · contribs) 00:25, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I was not on wikipedia for approximately 4 days - that certainly does not prohibit me from rebutting your comment. As this is an ArbCom case addressing my behavior - why would i not respond to something like that?  Your follow up is exactly my point - you have not presented the information relative to the situation.  Do you know what happened at Brett Favre? You said i avoided the template - i basically avoided ALL edits! Three days of not touching contentious pieces of information that are in place on a multitude of articles is more than reasonable - especially considering the fact that CJN had already ignored a number of attempts at dispute resolution.  Had the situation been dealt with (that is - had all the information available to the admins been acted upon) we would never have gotten this far.  Instead, CJN has called someone a nazi (see above), and continues to belittle and berate people on his own talk page during a block. JmFangio| ►Chat  00:31, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * To clarify for people who have not viewed the edit summary i provided in the first section of my evidence: Chrisjnelson removed content from his own talk page posted by another using the edit summary "Removed nazi propraganda" . That could not have been a more inappropriate, or misplaced comment.  JmFangio| ►Chat  00:33, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Juan, please stop. You are acknowledged by more people than me to be at fault in this case, despite your unwillingness to recognize this. jddphd (talk · contribs) 00:54, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Stop what? You came here to point out grossly misrepresented "facts" and I responded to that. I alerted you to your talk page and then you engaged me further here. I have politely responded.  You then went an commented at another users talk page about this and again mis-stated the information.  I unfortunately had to respond to that .  I have never said I did not do anything against wiki policy and guidelines.  What I have said is that the situation allowed me no other alternative.  You did not consider that between my notice on July 28 ) and  July 31st, nearly all of my edits were focused on moving articles and on discussion (I kept my word that is).  Shortly thereafter, you will see I took a handful of days off AGAIN and stopped editing entirely. If you want to offer evidence in ArbComs - please do so with more care.  I'll take responsibility for what I did, but I will not be thrown under the buss by someone who doesn't do a good job of relaying information. JmFangio| ►Chat  01:23, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Rebutal to Ronny Mexico/Possible sockpuppet or meatpuppet
I first encountered at the Ray Lewis (American football) article. He had entered into a minor revert war of sorts with an independent user. His edits were not backed by sources and he had failed to provide an edit summary. After reviewing his edit history and the messages on the users talk page, it became apparent that this user has had a high propensity for extended conflict despite a very small number of edits during the history of the account.

It was also suspicious to me that his first edit followed one made by Chrisjnelson. As his edits were not backed by sources and he had engaged in this behavior before - i reverted his edit. and noted my suspicion in the edit summary (due to restrictions on space - i could not be more in depth). Ten minutes later, RM posted to the talk page and followed with a revert to the mainspace article approximately a minute or so later; obviously, there was no time for a response. I engaged him on the talk page. After responding and then doing my own cursory search - i found the users claims were not supported. I then reverted the main article with a notation to the point on the talk page. This was over the course of about 10-15 minutes. As soon as the editor provided sourced information, he inserted it and it remains there now.

I am highly suspicious that this person is acting on behalf of CJN if it is not in fact CJN himself. If it is indeed an unrelated editor - it seems somewhat surprising that he found his way here despite no notification of this topic. CJNs name was never brought up on the ray lewis talk page  - so that would follow the logic that he already knew of this topic. Per his talk page, he has clearly engaged in this with other editors before, and despite my request separate myself from him, he has arrived here. It should be further explained that Ronny Mexico is a reference to an alias used by Michael Vick - another article CJN and myself have had run ins over. Additionally, as Chrisjnelson continues to engage people in discussion on his talk page (regarding his ban) - and this user has edited within a very close time frame of CJNs edits to his talk page - compare and  JmFangio| ►Chat  03:58, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * PER ADVICE OF - will an arbcom member please dethread this. JmFangio| ►Chat  04:36, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

My involvement
My involvement in this case began with a comment on a discussion at the community sanction noticeboard, having responded to a case which Jmfangio had brought there. Not too long after this, Jmfangio contacted me on my talk page. Especially given Jmfangio's assertion that he felt "obligated to bite back", I became concerned and decided to look at the situation. By this point, there had already been a significant amount of hostility between the two, especially at Template talk:Infobox NFLactive (see talk archive), though thankfully things between the two do seem to have settled down after the discussion at WP:CSN referenced by Navou above. I am, however, still concerned at this point, as the initial interactions between the two were also civil, but quickly degenerated into the behavior which resulted in this case, and even as of this writing civility between the two seems to be once again breaking down.

Chrisjnelson and Jmfangio have engaged in repeated and disruptive edit warring
Both editors have been guilty of this, at times resulting in 3RR blocks for both Jmfangio and Chrisjnelson, and requiring the protection of the above-mentioned template, and the Peyton Manning article. As one might imagine, articles on football players are popular entry points for new editors, especially during football season, so protection at this time is quite detrimental. Chrisjnelson has been engaged as recently as yesterday in an edit war at Brett Favre with another editor, User:800 Home Runs, over use of the NFL template. ,, ,.

Jmfangio and Chrisjnelson have been uncivil toward one another and toward other editors
This incivility has occurred over many pages, including both editors' talk page, my talk page, and the talk pages of the above template and of the problem articles. Even as of this writing, the sniping is continuing on both editors' part,. Chrisjnelson has often made comments questioning Jmfangio's sanity, and persisted in calling him "dude" despite Jmfangio's objection and the fact that this served no purpose other than to inflame the situation. On the other side, Jmfangio has referred repeatedly to Chrisjnelson as "childish" and threatened to revert all edits, regardless of merit, even after being told that this was unacceptable behavior. There has been far too much of this behavior on both sides to list anything but a representative sample, but the above gives some idea of the problem.

My (B) involvement
I first noticed the issue when I saw a bunch of pages on my watchlist getting renamed (see below) and wanted to find out why. I have tried lending my technical abilities to the development of the template and encouraging civility on the discussion page.

Juan did, as he points out above, invite me and others to a mediation a month ago. At the time, my only involvement was to revert his incorrect renaming of various pages. There was, at the time, nothing to mediate that involved me. I had not examined the totality of the dispute and in any event was not a party to it. Obviously, I subsequently became more involved and would not have made the same decision today - circumstances have changed in the last month. In retrospect, it would have been better if I had simply attempted to remove myself as a party to the mediation, but I had no earthly idea that the mediation would be closed upon one party declining. I had assumed that, if others were interested, they could proceed.

I'm not sure how this message Chris left on my talk page trying to convince me of his point of view is evidence of involvement on my part. At any rate, the diff was from August 7. The administrative action I took that Juan disputes (fixing a problem that was breaking every single transclusion of the template while the template was protected for an unrelated dispute) was on July 29. The mediation request was on July 28. So even if I would have been considered an involved user on August 7, I haven't taken any administrative actions on the template since that time. -- B 21:24, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Jmfangio has occasionally demonstrated a good faith misunderstanding of policies and practices

 * (Note that Jmfangio created his account on July 13, 2007 - creation log)
 * He incorrectly moved a number of articles in American football positions to disambiguation-style names when there was nothing to disambiguate. (For example Quarterback - logs, Running back - logs, Placekicker - logs, among many others.  Please note that he has also done a fantastic job correctly renaming a number of disambiguation pages that were inconsistently named and that these are only a small number of his page moves.)
 * He edited the comments of another at an RFC
 * Asked for the "wrong version" to be protected
 * Note: in this context, "wrong version" refers to The Wrong Version. I am not saying or claiming that there was anything wrong with your version. That's just what we call it when someone asks for their preferred version to be implemented on a protected page. -- B  23:26, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Jmfangio has repeatedly demonstrated an unwillingness to cooperate

 * States that he will revert all of Chris's edits until the RFC is complete (note that he later backed off, but this statement still helps understand the dispute)
 * WP:OWN issues with the template - suggested Chris create his own template as a result of the dispute, ,
 * "I have no desire to engage you in any further discussion. " -
 * Reinstated edit protected request declined by admin MZMcBride -
 * No longer willing to participate in discussion, ,
 * Refusal to discuss any other issue until previous issues have been resolved -, ,, among others.  This makes it really difficult to accomplish anything as it essentially stonewalls any progress and I believe that this is a HUGE reason for the conflict.  (See Chris's statements on the subject here, here, and here.)
 * , - Juan states that he intends to automatically revert anything done without wide-scale agreement, essentially attempting to impose his own protection on the template. Incidentally, Chris posted a half an hour before making the edit in question that he intended to do so and there was no objection.
 * On an informal opinion poll regarding how to resolve the pro-bowl issue, Juan declared that one of the options did not exist and edit warred to strike and/or remove the !votes of everyone who favored it. I asked, but never did get an answer as to why. ,,, , , ,  The remaining two options were the one he preferred and a "have you quit beating your wife yet" type option.
 * Response to the above response: that's the whole problem here. You are not the arbiter of what options can be presented or what can be discussed.  Over half of the people opining in the poll preferred option #3.  Removing/striking it is counter-productive.  This isn't congress and we don't do things according to Robert's Rules of Order.  It was an informal poll to gauge what everyone wanted to do and if a third option helps, removing it is a bad idea. -- B  23:20, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * At one point while the template was protected, there were two bugs causing virtually every transclusion to be broken. See  for the discussion - I'm not going to link every single diff.  Juan asked for one of them (a problem with the height) to be fixed.  I fixed it.  Then he complained about me fixing it and refused to discuss any issues (which rather defeats the purpose of the protection - it was protected to facilitate discussion).  I came up with a fix to the second problem and proposed it on the talk page.  Juan objected to it, but would not give a reason for the objection.  Even though the bug was breaking a ton of articles and really needed to be fixed, it just wasn't worth it to try and deal with it.

Chrisjnelson has exacerbated the problem

 * In this diff, Chris mentioned editing some articles based on seeing them in Jmfangio's contributions list. Given the tension between these two, that's probably a really bad idea.  The thread at  is worth reading.
 * Incivility on the RFC -
 * Incivility on the template talk page - ,

This and related disputes have created a large-scale disruption

 * I don't know to what extent this may be related, but, who is almost certainly one in the same with , as soon as he created an account instantly started edit warring with and attacking Juan, Chris, and SpigotMap. It is at least possible that this is a disruption-only account and it is obviously someone's sock puppet.
 * Disagreeing with Juan is a personal attack (see last two sections of )
 * See this dispute playing out across a number of talk pages
 * See also the aforementioned move debacle and a related debate
 * ANI threads, , ,
 * AN3 threads ,
 * RFP threads ,
 * If there are any other ANI, AN3, or RFP threads, feel free to add them or if a particular thread went beyond the revision I picked, feel free to change to a more recent revision - I have made an effort to have an exhaustive list of threads from these three fora

Evidence presented by User:Jddphd
''NB: I couldn't really be more comprehensive than, or , the latter of which tried to resolve this problem through community mediation. I echo their sentiments as I have been involved with this dispute as well. My brief summary below illustrates my perspective.''

Fangio and Nelson have engaged in edit warring
My involvement with these two begins here, as I was doing some routine CVU duty on recent changes patrol. I tried to clarify the issue and get a little discussion started here.

Nelson has violated WP:DE and WP:OWN
Any of the examples of edit warring above will work, but see this threat in particular. Note that his assertion of factualness on the Pro Bowl year debate is untenable given that there are two different ways of listing the years from what appear to be official sites, as Fangio shows here. I recognize ArbCom cannot rule on content, but I make this point to show that Nelson asserts the veracity of his method when there is no authoritative incontrovertible proof.

Fangio is guilty of WP:WL and WP:OWN
The instances of this are nuanced, but here's an example, and here as well. He's also "held the template hostage" in his userspace, as seen here. Please understand I didn't mean that to sound combative, but I couldn't find another way of saying that he's tried to get people to work on his terms. See here as well - this series of edits shows Fangio wanting to do the edits himself. There's some baiting here too.

Both editors have resisted WP:COOL
I suggested they take a break. They were not interested.

Assurances by Chrisjnelson cannot be trusted
At the workshop to this arbitration Chrisjnelson tries to reject a proposed topic ban:
 * I do not feel this is necessary. I do a lot of good in the NFL community and Jmfangio does too. I think we can avoid the kind of massive disputes that would make a topic ban necessary. I thoroughly enjoy working on the NFL project and I believe I am very valuable to it. I will do whatever it takes to avoid a topic ban.

That wording I will do whatever it takes to avoid a topic ban. is telling: on August 23, 2007 he made a voluntary pledge to avoid most sports articles, then began violating the pledge three minutes after he made it.

From this thread, which was moving toward consensus on a temporary topic ban:
 * ''Okay so... no ban is necessary. Let Jmfangio edit whatever he wants, and I just won't. All I would really like to edit the 2007 Miami Dolphins season article and the templates at List of current NFL team rosters - two things Jmfangio has shown pretty much no interest in (if any at all). Can I just agree to stop doing anything with the infobox, adding it anywhere, edit warring with him or anything and just edit those things on my own? I want to do the Dolphins article in particular, because I'm trying to make it a very deep article that will be interesting to look back on years from now. None of this ban stuff is necessary.

After offering the above pledge at 3:44, 23 August 2007 Chrisjnelson edited Template:Dallas Cowboys roster at 3:47, 23 August 2007. In the next minutes he also edited Template:Atlanta Falcons roster, Template:Indianapolis Colts roster, and Template:Kansas City Chiefs roster before returning to the topic ban discussion and elaborating on his pledge.


 * I don't think he should be banned from editing anything. He can edit whatever he wants here at Wikipedia, including the articles/templates I said I'd like to focus on. All I'm saying is that's all I want to work on, and that I'm willing to drop everything else. I don't think there is any immediate need for a ban of any kind on either of us, unless it is felt one or both of us deserves punishment for our past violations.

That noble sentiment ended three minutes afterward when he posted a change to Template:Detroit Lions roster. He went on to violate his own voluntary pledge sixteen times before the day was out.

At 00:21, 24 August 2007 he posted to my talk page with Durova... I know I promised to avoid anything and everything infobox-related - and I will if you still want me to. Actually he has violated that pledge dozens of times by now, but doesn't admit to it. So I was wondering if it might be okay with you if I do remain involved in the infoboxes. Note that he requests my assent. Another highlight from this post: Please let me know - I won't jump back into any infoboxes-related things until I hear from you.

There can be no confusion about my expectations. At 00:54, 24 August 2007 I clarify:
 * Whoa nellie...first off, that's she. Second - Chris, I closed that topic ban proposal because you made a pledge. If you turn around and break that pledge I could block you for disruption, then write up an evidence statement for the newly opened arbitration case citing this sequence of events to demonstrate your lack of self-control. The likely outcome is that you'd get involuntary limitations placed on you for a considerably longer time frame.

Chrisjnelson acknowledges that warning by responding to it four minutes after I post, then promptly edits another football article and a few minutes afterward he goes back to another football template. He continues undeterred.

On 31 August 2007 Rocksanddirt asks me to intervene in the ongoing disruption. Six minutes afterward Chrisjnelson comes to my user page to claim he expects no consequences for his behavior.  He's rather lucky that another sysop applies a three hour block before I respond – I would have given him a week and promptly posted evidence to this case. Instead I go to Chris's talk page, explain how bad the circumstances look, and ask him for any evidence that could shed a better light on his behavior. I also caution Chris about an (oversighted) post he made to WP:ANI where he disclosed another editor's actual name. His response provides no evidence and the following explanation for the broken pledge. ''As for the whole thing about a topic ban, my pledge and all that. Whether you believe me or not, I was being sincere when I first made the pledge and at the time I fully expected to stand by it.'' – which fails to explain why he was already breaking it before he reposted repeatedly to affirm it. He goes on to characterize himself as a single purpose account. I suppose if I am banned from the topic (which would pretty much ban me entirely since that's almost all I'm interested in editing) there will be nothing I can do. The thread degenerates from there, with me offering strong cautions about the likely consequences of his behavior and requesting logic and evidence that is never forthcoming until he accuses me of bias and requests no further contact.  Despite that demand, which he has never formally withdrawn, he e-mailed me a question later that night. I have not replied.

Note that Chris admits to lying and even uses lying as an excuse for other objectionable behavior. To explain his removed Nazi propaganda edit summary here, he claims ''You totally missed the point. I was simply lying in the edit summary, like Jmfangio does all the time. The "nazi" thing had nothing to do with you.'' I have seen no evidence that Jmfangio lies all the time. Over thirty diffs demonstrate my rather brief observations about Chrisjnelson's level of honesty.

In a word, chutzpah. This editor has serious issues with WP:OWN, WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, WP:DE, and WP:POINT. This is a WP:SPA, or very nearly so, and a thoroughly untrustworthy individual

Jmfangio is probably not a first account
After these encounters with Chrisjnelson I began preparing for this evidence statement. On August 10, 2007 I had blocked both accounts for WP:3RR violations and I had set those blocks for different durations because Chrisjnelson had two prior blocks and Jmfangio had none. Following up on that I attempted to determine whether this could be interpreted as a sign that Chrisjnelson was the primary aggressor and that Jmfangio might be able to edit harmoniously with other people. I have been unable to reach a conclusion regarding that question.

The first edit by the Jmfangio account looks like the work of an experienced editor: adding code to a box at WikiProject American football on 14 July 2007. Other early edits follow in similar style.

I posted a query to his talk page about whether this is his first account and so far have received no reply. Although he hasn't edited in the last couple of days, this case has gone into voting so I'm posting what I know as of now. With another sysop last night I explored several routes to track a possible parent account. We tried all of the obvious methods and several non-obvious ones without yielding any apparent match. A more comprehensive search might yield something, but since my primary purpose for investigating that was to determine whether this editor had a history of harmonious or conflicted interactions with other editors, I suppose it's enough to say that I consider it possible but unlikely that this is his first account. I cannot find evidence that he collaborated well with other editors for any sustained length of time, and because of that I am unable to recommend lighter remedies for this editor. Durova Charge! 06:59, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

JMFangio is generally uncivil and accusatory
My comments are more related to JMFangio as a general user than his interaction with chrisjnelson. While I realize that they do not specifically relate to this dispute, I offer them with the intention of supplementing some of the prior evidence of uncivil behavior on the part of this user.

Earlier today I offered an extremely minor edit on the article Ray Lewis. Another user reverted my edit and I reverted it back, explaining the reasoning in the edit box as I thought the user might not have understood the basis for the edit. At this point, JMFangio reverted my edit back and immediately leveled an accusation of sock puppetry. I then elaborated my reasoning for the edit on the page and asked for an explanation for the sock puppetry accusation. JMFangio then rightfully requested a source for the edit but failed to address my request for an explanation for the sock puppetry charge, instead asserting that I had been involved in "edit warring with several users" which was a severe exaggeration at the very least.

At that point, I criticized his edit warring characterization, provided a source, and again requested an explanation for the sock puppetry allegation. In response to my request for an explanation, along with pointing out the similarity of my username to a supposed previous editor of that article, he accused me of taking an "aggressive, confrontational" editing style and alleged that I had shown an inability to get along with other users. Other than bristling at the sock puppet accusation, I'm not sure how my comments could be considered even remotely confrontational. Moreover, I don't see any basis for describing my edits as "aggressive."

The idea that my inability to get along with other users was a basis for his sock puppetry claim was even more absurd. He is the first user that I've had trouble getting along with and I'm not sure how he can extract my dispute with him to a general inability to get along with other users. Moreover, his sock puppetry allegation was actually made before the dispute, so he didn't even have his own experience to draw on despite eventually claiming it as a basis for the accusation.

I'm willing to allow my past edits to speak for themselves, I'm not the most frequent editor around, but I have been editing Wikipedia off and on for a few years now and I haven't taken an aggressive or confrontational editing style or had trouble getting along with other editors. I would submit that my past edits should have been evidence that I was an unlikely candidate to be a sock puppet as well, jmfangio should have taken a look at them (and assumed good faith, given the nature of the edits) before making the claim.

Anyway, at this point I admitted my mistake regarding the sourcing of the article and left the door open for jmfangio to do the same regarding his misguided accusation of sock puppetry. Instead of doing so, he offered a patronizing directive regarding the sourcing issue (which I had already addressed) and insinuated that he could've made a legitimate sock puppet complaint based on that limited info if he hadn't assumed good faith.

In summation, I found him to be an extremely difficult user to deal with. As I said before, I've been editing off and on for quite some time now and have not had any similar disputes with other editors. In reviewing this page, it's apparent that jmfangio has had a number of similar disputes with other editors and I will say that I don't think such uncivil, borderline obnoxious behavior is good for Wikipedia. Hopefully this arbitration proceeding can convince him to consider alternative methods of interacting with other users so that such disputes won't come to characterize his presence on this site. Ronnymexico 03:29, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Rebutal to JMFangio comments above
As I said above, my prior edits speak for themselves. Anyone interested in taking the time to examine the edits I've made and discussions I've had with other users on talk pages will readily see that any edit conflicts I've had have been satisfactorily resolved for both myself and the other involved parties in a civil manner and that Jmfangio's claim of a "high propensity for extended conflict" is an out and out lie (not unlike his claim that I was engaged in an "edit war" with another user on the Ray Lewis page when there was only one reversion and no interaction between myself and that user). I'm not sure why jmfangio linked my edit history as an attempt to bolster his claim that I have a "high propensity for conflict" when any user who follows up and views my actual edits will see that is not the case.

I found this page by checking jmfangio's contributions after his uncivil behavior on the Ray Lewis talk page. I was curious whether he had engaged in similar tactics with respect to other users and soon found my way to this arbitration page. jmfangio's paranoia regarding sock puppetry notwithstanding, I don't know chrisjnelson, have had no interaction with chrisjnelson and cannot offer an opinion on his Wikipedia conduct. After being subjected to jmfangio's disruptive and uncivil behavior my instincts tell me that there's a decent chance his biggest problem is that he simply had the misfortune of running across jmfangio on Wikipedia, but sarcasm aside I really can't comment on their dispute as I don't know much about it.

Still, while jmfangio's conspiracy theories regarding suspicious behavior, coincidental posting and username duplicity are so ridiculous that they're almost amusing, they're also baseless and uncivil and I would welcome a check of the IP addresses used in conjunction with this user account against any account jmfangio alleges is involved in any sock puppetry scheme so that these claims can be completely discredited. I see that someone else insinuated that the jmfangio account might not be a unique one and his seeming obsession with the sock puppetry issue could be an indication that he's involved in multiple aspects of the sock puppetry issue. Then again, unlike jmfangio, I am not making that accusation with nothing substantive to go on. To be honest, I don't care whether he's a sock puppet account, I'd just like to see his behavior improve, particularly in the area of civility. Once again, while I do not have an extensive history of Wikipedia edits, I have been around for a while now and have had no problem getting along with other Wikipedia users prior to jmfangio.Ronnymexico 04:34, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

{Write your assertion here}
Place argument and diffs which support your assertion; for example, your first assertion might be "So-and-so engages in edit warring", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits to specific articles which show So-and-so engaging in edit warring.

{Write your assertion here}
Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.

Evidence presented by {your user name}
before using the last evidence template, please make a copy for the next person

{Write your assertion here}
Place argument and diffs which support your assertion; for example, your first assertion might be "So-and-so engages in edit warring", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits to specific articles which show So-and-so engaging in edit warring.

{Write your assertion here}
Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.