Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jmfangio-Chrisjnelson/Workshop

This is a page for working on Arbitration decisions. The Arbitrators, parties to the case, and other editors may draft proposals and post them to this page for review and comments. Proposals may include proposed general principles, findings of fact, remedies, and enforcement provisions&mdash;the same format as is used in Arbitration Committee decisions. The bottom of the page may be used for overall analysis of the /Evidence and for general discussion of the case.

Any user may edit this workshop page. Please sign all suggestions and comments. Arbitrators will place proposed items they believe should be part of the final decision on the /Proposed decision page, which only Arbitrators may edit, for voting.

WP:ADOPT for
1) Some guidance to help the user better manage discussions and disputes would go a long way. It could help with everything from dispute resolution to knowledge of WP:PGs. 08:13, 24 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * B' - Adoption is a the terminology used. If anyone finds the term insulting, then they need to broach that topic at WP:ADOPT.  The actual problem - as I have stated before - is that this user continually engages in similar behavior.  The problem is not (and has never been) that he disagrees with me.  It's that he violates numerous behavioral P/Gs in order to justify his stance. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  18:09, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Navou I will be glad to amend my statement so that the intention is clear. I am suggesting that if someone were around on a frequent basis to assist the user with discussions; he would have the help in place to improve his talk page discussions.  Let me know if that is ambiguous or not. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  18:09, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Jddphd - But it only takes one person to call another person a lunatic and mentally unstable. The fact that I have had to put up with that is inexcusable and falls totally on the admins.  Once it was reported and once he was warned - that should have been the end of it.  He's done this to others, i'm not the first and I'm probably not going to be the last. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  02:29, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:
 * Not needed as worded here. Perhaps a remedy? Navou banter 13:13, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * You have mentioned this before. Surely, you realize it can be considered insulting. At any rate, I don't see how it addresses any actual problem. -- B  13:41, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I find it a little bit hypocritical too. It takes two to tango. jddphd (talk · contribs) 01:34, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I've suggested he try it voluntarily. Durova  Charge! 14:13, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Treating this as a mini-RFC within an Arbcom workshop to obtain user consensus on a point, I think it's a sound idea and would recommend it. Treating this as a matter for Arbcom to consider, definitely not - it's outside scope. Orderinchaos 18:31, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Request for checkuser on Chrisjnelson
2) Per this ANI thread, requesting a checkuser for possible violations of WP:BLOCK, WP:VANDAL, and WP:POINT.

Note the following sequence:
 * Chrisjnelson blocked at 17:00, 31 August 2007.
 * IP 70.113.76.108 becomes active at 17:22, 31 August 2007.
 * The IP immediately edits several football articles and defaces a page in the user space of Jmfangio

Possible sockpuppets

 * (I've indeffed this as an impersonation account).


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * ✅; also:
 * Evidence matching these is extremely strong. I don't see any relationship to Chrisjnelson at all. Nor is there any apparent connection to Jmfangio. No comment on the IP. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 15:32, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Evidence matching these is extremely strong. I don't see any relationship to Chrisjnelson at all. Nor is there any apparent connection to Jmfangio. No comment on the IP. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 15:32, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Evidence matching these is extremely strong. I don't see any relationship to Chrisjnelson at all. Nor is there any apparent connection to Jmfangio. No comment on the IP. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 15:32, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Evidence matching these is extremely strong. I don't see any relationship to Chrisjnelson at all. Nor is there any apparent connection to Jmfangio. No comment on the IP. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 15:32, 8 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * As jddphd said before, I am willing to have my IP information looked up and I am in favor of a checkuser happening ASAP. I have no connection to this vandal and want everyone to know that. At first I thought this vandal might be connected to our dispute - either someone in support of me or someone in support of Jmfangio trying to make me look bad. But that was before I looked at the specific vandalism and it looks like it has something to do with Joe Montana, which if I recall correctly I've never edited. So I guess it's unrelated. Still, I'd like my name to be cleared and this vandal should definitely be banned.► Chris Nelson  03:37, 3 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Submitted. I am unable to ask Chrisjnelson for comment because he has requested no further contact with me.  Durova  Charge! 04:37, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Note that User:Chrisjnelson is keen to see checkuser performed quickly to clear his name per this diff. jddphd (talk · contribs) 14:31, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Chrisjnelson seems very confident that the three possible sockpuppets have absolutely no connection to him, and I'm not certain that any of these three accounts have any sort of connection to either Jmfangio or Chrisjnelson. But either way, where is the checkuser?  Ksy92003  (talk)  04:26, 3 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I would say there's pretty much zero chance that this is Chris. Note that Chris and Juan have both been harassed by someone who is extremely concerned with dogfighting.  I don't think that this person is related to our Notre Dame fan, but I mention it only to say that there are lots of people who push a POV in football articles and they aren't all the same person.   and his users don't come across as anything like Chris.  This person is older, Catholic, knowledgeable about Notre Dame and Big Ten football, editing from a Virginia IP address, and always capitalizes his edit summaries, using complete sentences. Chris is 50/50 on capitalizing edit summaries, never using punctuation in them, edits mostly pro football articles (rarely college), and self-identifies as an agnostic college student from Georgia - an identification that has been on his user page since February.  There is no way in heck that Chris is related to this user. -- B  04:49, 3 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Considering that this is arbitration, I think it's worthwhile to check this out. I would have no objection to checking these accounts against Jmfangio also.  Durova  Charge! 14:23, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * So what do we do when a checkuser performed during arbitration turns up impersonation by a third party? Based upon the timing it's quite likely the IP vandal was watching this case and exploited the timing of Chris's block to throw suspicion on Chris, and that IP's history (which I did trace and suspect before writing up this checkuser) makes this really look like someone who's been up to no good for months.  I'm tempted to indef all socks, put a yearlong block on the static IP, and enter a long term vandalism report under the heading "Notre Dame vandal".  Any objections to that solution?  Durova  Charge! 16:34, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I've gone ahead per WP:BOLD and community banned him as the Notre Dame vandal. Please advise if that oversteps since his actions are tangentially related to the arbitration case.  Durova  Charge! 19:26, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Proposed dismissal
3) As has been discovered to be a sock puppet of a banned user and blocked, there is no longer anything to arbitrate.  The request is dismissed.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * I also object. While I believe Jmfangio's absence may lessen how severe the restrictions on Chrisjnelson need to be, Jmfangio is not the only editor his behavior has been problematic with. There is also the fact that he didn't know that Jmfangio was a reincarnation of a banned user when he behaved the way he did or edit warred with him. I believe that this should still be examined. Seraphimblade Talk to me 16:43, 8 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed. -- B 15:28, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Object. Chrisjnelson's behavior merits separate examination.  Durova  Charge! 16:27, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Or perhaps more to the point, I'd like to see the Committee examine Chrisjnelson's behavior toward editors who weren't commuity banned sockpuppeteers or unidentified long term vandals. Durova  Charge! 17:50, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Object Regardless of how Jmfangio acted, Chrisjnelson still acted in a very bad way, and his behavior still needs to be examined. Chris had no idea about Jmfangio's sock puppet status, and treated him like a normal user.  But that means that he treated somebody who he thought was a normal user quite bad, in my opinion.  I think his actions should hold the same weight because he hadn't a clue that Jmfangio was doing any wrong doing and acted normally.  His actions should still be evaluated to determine consequences for him, although Jmfangio has already received the ultimate punishment: an indefinite ban.  Ksy92003  (talk)  18:16, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Object This requires an evaluation of Chrisjnelson's contributions in their own light, but quite rightly should not now be evaluated as a simple dispute between two editors, but an assessment of the behaviour of one editor. As such, there is still material for ArbCom to consider, although with the likelihood of this particular dispute reoccurring having drastically diminished, I would imagine that preventative penalties would kick in at a higher level than had this not eventuated. Orderinchaos 18:29, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Suspension
3.2) Given the discovery that Jmfangio was a sockpuppet of banned user Tecmobowl and his indefinite block, this case is suspended. It may be reopened at any time by motion of the Arbitration Committee if substantial evidence is presented that Chrisjnelson has continued to behave inappropriately. If no motion to resume the case is proposed by any arbitrator within six months from the passage of this motion the case shall be considered closed.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed, I think this might be a better option than dismissal, and won't leave it hanging indefinitely. Seraphimblade Talk to me 08:56, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Strongly oppose – although Jmfangio was found to be a sockpuppet, that still doesn't excuse any of Chris' behavior. Chris has still behaved inappropriately towards other users, whether they were sockpuppets or not (something that Chris didn't know of until just recently) and behaved quite inappropriately while believing that Jmfangio was just another user, like myself or Durova, and therefore, his inappropriate behavior should still be examined by the arbitrators.  Although there is no need for arbitration between Chris and Jmfangio, there still might be some need for arbitration between Chris and how he gets along with other users because of his inappropriate behavior.  Ksy92003  (talk)  22:40, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Tentatively endorse a case suspension wouldn't excuse or validate Chris's actions. Instead it would provide some time to see how he behaves without the exacerbating influence of a banned user and a long term vandal.  Whether or not any of us knew that about them, they both had an irritating influence.  Remedies are meant to be preventative rather than punitive and in this unusual situation it's difficult to estimate how much external remedy is needed.  Suggest either suspending case or closing with moderate remedies and an understanding that it might need a review by midseason.  Durova  Charge! 02:56, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Request for followup checkuser on Jmfangio
4) has edited very sporadically since July 27 (under 30 total edits).  On one occasion, his edits lined up with a time  was blocked.  All but one of his edits match up to times that Jmfangio was not editing, but would otherwise fall into the time of day when he was usually around.  Newguy34's very first edit  makes it clear this is not his first account.  I propose a checkuser to confirm whether or not this user is another reincarnation of Tecmobowl.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed. -- B 13:35, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Heck, I don't see how it would do any harm. Ksy92003  (talk)  13:54, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Temporary page bans for disruptive editing
1) During the course of this arbitration case, any administrator not involved in this case may ban Jmfangio, Chrisjnelson, or both from editing any page including a talk page for up to one week if in his or her opinion the editor so banned is editing the page disruptively. In the event such a banned editor makes edits in defiance of such a ban, the ban may be enforced by a block up to the length of the ban.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * I think this would help to curb the disruption and edit warring, and at least keep things from escalating any further. Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:32, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I have laid out what I believe to be appropriate terms for topic banning at this time at Requests_for_comment/Chrisjnelson. I think that would be the best way to eliminate potential edit wars while this goes on. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  05:48, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:
 * This only postpones the problem, and let's not forget that the temporary bans have been ineffective at halting the behavior. Constructive editing is already a prerequisite for editing WP, and this tool is already available to sysops for nonconstructive contributions! Strikes me that future behavior of this nature deserves stronger penalties, if that's the direction that the committee takes. jddphd (talk · contribs) 01:41, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Although I haven't tested this theory yet, I believe I'd be fully justified in applying a weeklong WP:POINT block on Chrisjnelson at nearly any time for his continued editing at football topics after his voluntary pledge to avoid the subject. Durova  Charge! 14:15, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Template
2)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
3)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
4)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Questions to the parties
=Proposed final decision=

Civility
Editors are expected to be reasonably civil and courteous to one another. See Civility.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Agreed. However, when one user continues violate this and nothing is done to curtail the behavior, it is hard to expect other's to adhere to it. Being uncivil is a broad term that is often misapplied.  Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  08:08, 24 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:


 * Proposed. Navou banter 02:15, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Endorse. Durova  Charge! 14:59, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Reversion
2) Editors are expected to resolve disputes per the guidance in dispute resolution in lieu of reverting edits.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:

In fact, he quickly removed himself from the one step that he agreed to - WP:CEM.
 * Essentially - I engaged in edit warring when WP:DR was ignored, when discussion was ignored, and then personal attacks were issued as support for his "edits". I did this in direct accordance with WP:IAR. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  18:17, 24 August 2007 (UTC)


 * There needs to be some sort of consideration for when one editor continues the dispute but the other(s) refuses to engage and/or acknowledge the findings of WP:DR. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat 01:52, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Endorse. Agreed that it's difficult to deal with an editor who demonstrates no intention of abiding by site standards.  The way to handle that is to walk the straight and narrow while collecting evidence.  It's far easier to get swift and effective attention from sysops when only one party is in violation of policies.  Sometimes that means opening dispute resolution: the other side might come to the table and be reasonable - and if someone refuses to do so the attempted DR provides a means for the community to measure the person's unreasonableness.  Durova  Charge! 15:13, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed. Navou banter 13:11, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Template
3) {text of proposed principle}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
4) {text of proposed principle}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
5) {text of proposed principle}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
6) {text of proposed principle}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
7) {text of proposed principle}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Edit Warring
1) User:Chrisjnelson and User:Jmfangio have engaged in repeated and disruptive edit warring.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * I have definitely edit warred with him; these edit wars may have been disruptive to some. Every edit war was a result of a reactive edit by me.  In other words, if someone had helped promote further discussion, these wars would have never happened.  Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  02:35, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Prop. Navou banter 13:45, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It should be split up ... that way "Chrisjnelson has edit warred" and "Jmfangio has edit warred" can be considered separately. -- B 01:10, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I understand, but nah. They both did it.  I equalized the remedy proposed on both, so this should not be an issue, hopefully.  01:24, 27 August 2007 (UTC)Navou banter
 * Endorse. I can't establish a basis for calling one of these parties the primary aggressor.  Durova  Charge! 15:15, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Civility
2) User:Chrisjnelson and User:Jmfangio have been uncivil to each other.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Civility is relative. Had the personal attacks been properly dealt with (which they weren't) we would not be at this level. The admins who have failed to address this matter properly (as in - accordance with the guidelines and policies) - we would not be here.  They have as much responsibility as the two parties. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  18:14, 24 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed. Navou banter 13:12, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed. And in response to Jmfangio, it's not the job or the responsibility of Wikipedia admins to "deal with" user disputes in the way described above - users have to take responsibility for their own interactions and if they can't do so, then they should approach a formal or informal mediator who can try to assist them reach an agreement. Orderinchaos 18:03, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Endorse with a special comment to Jmfangio: sysops are in short supply at this site. One of the reasons I became one is because of delays in gaining administrative attention regarding disruptive editing at an article where I had been working.  Those delays were far longer than you experienced, and if I had made that an excuse to lower my own standard of behavior I probably would have gotten sanctioned at arbitration instead of what I'm doing now: coaching promising editors into administratorship so that other people don't have to deal with the same frustrations.  That effort is hindered by the time and effort consumed in managing your response to conflict: I categorically reject the thesis that I or any other sysop is culpable for an editor's decision to violate site policies.  Durova  Charge! 15:31, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Locus Subject of dispute
3)Dispute is centered on wording and application of football related articles and templates.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * I think that is only a small part of the dispute. The dispute - as i see it at this point - is based entirely on behavior.  There were a multitude of issues that Chrisjnelson raised that have been contentious; had there been more appropriate discussion - and more respect for other people's opinions - we would not be here. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  18:12, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I think that's more the subject of the dispute. The locus of the dispute has been all over the place, including on quite a few user talk pages. Seraphimblade Talk to me 04:40, 25 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed. Navou banter 17:49, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Re-worded and ooops. Navou banter 05:11, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Endorse. Durova  Charge! 15:54, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Extreme incivility by Chrisjnelson
4) Chrisjnelson has continued to make increasingly offensive incivil remarks and personal attacks even while this arbitration case was pending. Examples:.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Agreed, and link #2 in this section is particularly troubling for me. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat 03:50, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed as well, Chrisjnelson's behavior during this incident was highly uncivil and unacceptable, especially the "Nazi" reference. Seraphimblade Talk to me 00:05, 1 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed. This already serious situation took a very negative turn tonight. Newyorkbrad 03:24, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * He has made an apology for some of these remarks now, on his talk. We will see if his comments take a decided turn for the more civil in the next few days. Newyorkbrad 00:13, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Endorse . Durova  Charge! 15:55, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Strongly endorse per the exchanges below. He just doesn't accept responsibility or acknowledge that his behavior exceeds the boundaries for this site.  Wikipedia is not Usenet.  Durova  Charge! 02:39, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * As the victim of the "Nazi" reference, here is a comment I posted (accidentally on User talk:Chrisjnelson, removed with the edit summary "analogy not good," later on my talk page, where I originally intended) about the "Nazi" statement Chris made. The collapsed comment below is an analogy between the recent incivility towards me by Chris, especially the inappropriate edit summary including the aforementioned "N"-word and one of the earlier disputes between Jmfangio and Chrisjnelson.  Ksy92003  (talk)  16:35, 3 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I'll let everybody else determine what to make of this comment. I originally posted my comment at User talk:Chrisjnelson, but after he removed it (edit summary: "analogy not good"), when I signed on this morning I realized that I posted it on his talk page, rather than User talk:Ksy92003, where I wanted.  Again, I'll let everybody else decide if this is relevant or not, but I think it is, and if I need explain its relevance, I'll attempt to do so to the best of my ability.  Ksy92003  (talk)  16:35, 3 September 2007 (UTC)


 * You were not the victim of the Nazi reference. You mistakenly thought you were the target, but were not. There was no target, it was not directed at anyone or anyone's comments, therefore there is no reason to be offended by it. It was practically an uttering of a phrase with nothing behind it - that in itself is not offensive.► Chris Nelson  16:48, 3 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Then who was the victim of the "Nazi" reference, Alex Richardson? You used the example of shouting "f-g a--hole" to a person in a group, and another thinks it was directed at them.  Using that similar situation, if I reverted an edit you made, and used the edit summary "f-g a--hole," are you telling me that you wouldn't think that it was directed towards you?  Ksy92003  (talk)  17:00, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The bottom line here is that the editor is habitually rude. The problem exceeds the level normally tolerated at Wikipedia, the imminent prospect of arbitration sanctions is insufficient to deter the rudeness, and the editor attempts to reframe discussion in terms of other people's perceptions.  None of that holds water.  Durova  Charge! 17:11, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * There seems to also be a frequent occurence of failure to communicate civilly and calmly with other users. For Chrisjnelson, this extends to a dispute between him and  at Talk:Reggie Jackson, which involved numerous personal attacks, which occured back in late-May, before Jmfangio even became a user on Wikipedia.  This isn't a relatively new issue; it's been around for quite some time, well before his disputes with Jmfangio.  Ksy92003  (talk)  17:28, 3 September 2007 (UTC)


 * There was no victim because it was not directed at anyone. It intentionally had no connect to anyone or anyone's comments. Therefore when it is clarified as it has been, there ceases to be any logical reason for anyone to be offended.► Chris Nelson  01:24, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


 * So now you're gonna tell me when I can and can't be offended? You're the one who gets to decide that?  If I called you a bad name, can I say that you can't be offended by that?  Ksy92003  (talk)  01:34, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Further examples of Chrisjnelson's extreme incivility
Below are further examples of how Chris has failed to effectively communicate with other users without resorting to personal attacks and incivility. The following statements were made by Chrisjnelson at User talk:Yankees10 and can be viewed there for verifiability.

Do you have an[y] mental defects? That's the only explanation I can understand for such illogical behavior. – 17:00, 29 April 2007 (UTC) Shhh. It's okay baby. Everything's gonna be okay. – 17:13, 29 April 2007 (UTC) You're so cute when you're angry. – 17:18, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Despite these actions, which if you view the timestamps occured more than four months ago, Chrisjnelson has continued to communicate with other users by resorting to personal attacks (the "Nazi" reference) and being incivil. Ksy92003 (talk)  01:51, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


 * 1) The first was a legitimate question. Perhaps it was a personal attack under policy, but it was a genuine question so I don't regret that.
 * 2) The second and third comments were genuine. He really was adorable.
 * 3) For the 6,473rd time, the Nazi reference was not a personal attack because it was not directed at anyone. If it had been directed at Ksy92003, then yes, it would be a personal attack. But it was not directed at him, nor anyone for that matter, so to classify it as a personal attack is inherently false. You can't make a personal attack to nothingness.► Chris Nelson  01:56, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't say there is ever a reason to say somebody is mentally defective.
 * I don't even know what to make of these... it's just insensible, and derogative in nature.
 * Using the word "Nazi" is possibly the worst choice of words ever. I wouldn't think that you could ever use the word "Nazi" in a positive way.  And I still don't believe you when you say that it wasn't directed at me because you've admitted to lying in the past, and I have the impression that you are also lying when you say that it wasn't directed at me.  Whether it was or wasn't, I still viewed it as a personal attack, and I still do.  Ksy92003  (talk)  02:01, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Well Durova, what exactly do you think I should be doing in this situation that I am not? Admitting to things that aren't true?► Chris Nelson  02:41, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


 * So you're saying that you didn't make any personal attacks and that you're 100% clean? Ksy92003  (talk)  02:47, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Disruption of Wikipedia to make a point
5) Both editors, by continuing to engage uncivilly before and during this arbitration case with reasonable appreciation for the likely consequences of their actions are guilty of WP:POINT.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * The latest actions by both parties, with disputes spilling out across user talk pages and the AN/I board, are really ratcheting up animosity. I cannot see how this is illustrative of a desire to resolve the situation. There's just no reason to believe that either of them will be able to exercise the good judgment one would hope for. jddphd (talk · contribs) 17:28, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Endorse. Durova  Charge! 15:56, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Template
6) {text of proposed finding of fact}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
7) {text of proposed finding of fact}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
8) {text of proposed finding of fact}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Proposed remedies
Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Civility Parole
1) User:Jmfangio and User:Chrisjnelson placed on civility parole for a period of six months. If they make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, any editor with the technical ability to block, may block for a period of 24 hours, increasing incrementally in 24 hours increments for subsequent incidents.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Conditional Support - I am in full support of the idea here. I would say that the "blocking consequences" should be determined at the end of this process - not preemptively. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  18:21, 24 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed. Navou banter 12:44, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Support. Incivility has been a big issue in this dispute, as I've been a victim of much incivility recently.  There should be increasing consequences for subsequent acts of incivility.  Ksy92003  (talk)  03:48, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Support. The facts speak for themselves. jddphd (talk · contribs) 03:56, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

2RR Supervision
2) User:Jmfangio and User:Chrisjnelson placed on revert supervision. They are limited to two (2) reverts per article per day.  Any editor with the technical ability to block, may block for a period of 24 hours, increasing in 24 hour increments per incident.

2.1)User:Jmfangio and User:Chrisjnelson placed on revert supervision. They are limited to one (1) revert per article per day to the exclusion of vandalism.  Any editor with the technical ability to block, may block for a period of 24 hours, increasing in 24 hour increments per incident.
 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Do not support - This does not work well in conjunction with the above proposals. Especially considering the fact that I do end up reverting a number of "vandalism-esq" edits.  Additionally - when I am able to get the people to engage in discussion (as I did here) - it turns out great.  Notice who else jumped into this conversation. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  18:26, 24 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed. Navou banter 13:11, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I would suggest as an alternative, 1RR or 0RR of each other ... but in any event, as Jmfangio points out, vandalism reverts need to be specifically excluded. -- B 00:35, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Reworded. Navou banter 00:53, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Support as reworded under 2.1. Basically what is proposed is the same as WP:3RR (which allows reversion of vandalism outside its scope, except that it's 1 instead of 3. Orderinchaos 18:06, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Support 0RR, with the exception of removing inappropriate or unsourced material. If necessary, require discussion on talk page about the edit in question.  Ksy92003  (talk)  03:53, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. Can this be combined with the civility idea such that they are not allowed to revert EACH OTHER'S edits save for correcting consipicuous typos or something? The issue really isn't willy-nilly reversion, per se -- it's that they keep doing it to each other. jddphd (talk · contribs) 03:59, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Actions barred
3) Actions between User:Jmfangio and User:Chrisjnelson are barred. This does not include copy-editing and reverting simple vandalism.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * I would love it if there would be some sort of monitor for our interactions. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat 20:01, 25 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed, seems logical given the situation. Kwsn   (Ni!)  16:15, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Not as worded, but otherwise ok. However does proposed remedy 1 and 2 already take care of this as far as civility and RR goes?
 * The difference between this and remedies 1 and 2 is that those are for actions involving any user, these are just for between themselves. Also, I prefer having the second part tacked on because copy-editing is basically grammar and spelling fixes, and simple vandalism goes without saying.  Kwsn   (Ni!)  16:26, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Too broad. It would need to be something like "Jmfangio and Chrisjnelson are barred from undoing each other's actions".  As worded, that could mean that if one edits article X, the other is barred from ever editing that article. -- B  16:31, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed with B on a needed change of wording this one, although would it also need to address talk pages? Ideally two users with that much water under the bridge should avoid each other in my opinion. Orderinchaos 18:11, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I would suggest that if the two parties do edit the same article, the second person's edit can't be related to the changes made by the other. Not sure if this is monitor-able.  Ksy92003  (talk)  03:58, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Probation
4) Jmfangio and Chrisjnelson are placed indefinitely on Probation. Any administrator may, for good cause, ban either or both from editing a page for up to one week. If editing is done in defiance of such a ban, that ban may be enforced by blocking the editor in question for a period of time up to the length of the ban. All blocks and bans under this remedy are to be logged under the appropriate section here. The banned editor(s) must be notified on his talk page of the reason for the ban, the page(s) to which it applies, and the length it is for.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * I think at this point there needs to be some way to cool things down should civility again break down. This would at least allow disruption to be stopped before it gets too bad, without resorting to blocks. Seraphimblade Talk to me 16:54, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Absolutely not. This is again a problem with how things are being presented.  I have been harassed to know end by this guy - I asked for administrative help - and the only thing that happened was he was warned.  I am busy gathering my evidence still - but how can the ArbCom decide whether or not to implement this without viewing any of the evidence. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  19:17, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The ArbCom isn't deciding yet, and they won't even begin voting until all the evidence is in. All this workshop page is for is so people can throw out ideas as to things that may be needed, the arbitrators are in no way obligated to even consider anything placed here. If you want to throw out ideas here, you're welcome to do that too. Seraphimblade Talk to me 22:52, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:
 * Agree here. This perhaps will act as a stopgap for any disruptive editing. Navou banter 19:53, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Question - does this represent an overarching solution that subsumes the "civility parole" too? Perhaps language should be specific to WP:CIVIL and WP:OWN and WP:AGF or whatever the findings end up being so as to give subsequent admins guidance on the nature of the infractions and what they should be looking for? jddphd (talk · contribs) 01:54, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * This seems to be in line with the Civility parole and the proposed 2RR remedies, but I think can include any other disruption, such as one user following the other user around, editing the same articles that they edited. Ksy92003  (talk)  04:00, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Jmfangio banned from Template:Infobox NFLactive
5) For a period of 2 months, User:Jmfangio is banned from editing Template:Infobox NFLactive, except for reverting simple vandalism. He may discuss or request changes on the template talk page.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * I see no reasons why arbitrary time constraints are appropriate at any level. I will support any practical proposal.  For example: Jmfangio and Chrisjnelson are prohibited from making any edits to the  template that are not representative of WP:CON. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  02:33, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed-- B 22:04, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Perhaps a longer time period is required. Propose one year. Navou banter 02:34, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * This doesn't seem to be an issue right now. If reverting on this template begins again, I propose a six month-long ban on this template, as well as the other player infobox templates.  Ksy92003  (talk)  04:05, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Chrisjnelson banned from Template:Infobox NFLactive
6) For a period of 2 months, User:Chrisjnelson is banned from editing Template:Infobox NFLactive, except for reverting simple vandalism. He may discuss or request changes on the template talk page.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * As i said above: I see no reasons why arbitrary time constraints are appropriate at any level. I will support any practical proposal. For example: Jmfangio and Chrisjnelson are prohibited from making any edits to the template that are not representative of WP:CON. The problem isn't simply the edits, it's also the behavior surrounding the edits. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat 02:38, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed-- B 22:05, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Propose one year. Navou banter 02:35, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * This doesn't seem to be an issue right now. If reverting on this template begins again, I propose a six month-long ban on this template, as well as the other player infobox templates.  Ksy92003  (talk)  04:05, 3 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Exactly. Look at how recently/often I've edited the thing. I suck at editing templates anyway. Not necessary, and I can always be reprimanded immediately if I cause trouble on it. But I would say doing it right now for preventative reasons is unnecessary. I think my lack of recent edits on it shows that for sure.► Chris Nelson  04:08, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Topic ban from American football
7) Jmfangio and Chrisjnelson are banned indefinitely from editing all American football-related articles and templates. They may post to talk pages on these topics.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * 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.► Chris Nelson  03:33, 3 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed. Prefer if this applies in conjunction with proposed remedy 4.  I doubt lesser remedies will work because this dispute tends to travel from article to article.  Durova  Charge! 19:22, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I propose a shorter topic ban, perhaps a month or so (is that already one of the proposals above?). As both parties edit mostly American football-related articles, an indefinite topic ban seems too harsh.  Ksy92003  (talk)  03:44, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Support and Comment. A year might be long, but the ban would need to be suitably long as this seems justifiable in light of current interactions. There needs to be a major cooling off IMO. jddphd (talk · contribs) 03:55, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * This have cooled significantly in my opinion, we haven't edited too many of the same articles lately. None of the edit wars like we had before lately.► Chris Nelson  04:03, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd also like to point out that Jmfangio hasn't edited in the past 2.5 days (18:12, August 31, 2007 UTC) so I'm not entirely certain that recent (past two days) activity should determine this, although when Jmfangio was last active, I believe there still were issues, at least in the past week, which I feel is recent enough to still consider this. Ksy92003  (talk)  04:08, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Regarding named party assurances and promises here, see Requests_for_arbitration/Jmfangio-Chrisjnelson/Evidence. Durova  Charge! 09:45, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Template
8) {text of proposed remedy}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
9) {text of proposed remedy}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Jmfangio and Chrisjnelson may be blocked if they interact inappropriately
1) If Jmfangio or Chrisjnelson interact with each other in a way not allowed by the Arbcom, they can be blocked up to an hour by a passing administrator.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * I'd love this! Out of consistency with my previous points, i think that the block should be based on the "severity" of the actions. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  01:22, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that this might encourage, rather than curb, the baiting that currently goes on. I don't think it would work in practice. It also puts the ArbCom in the place of defining a full set of "allowed" actions. Admins can already block either or both for disruption (though of course I will not, given my involvement as a party.) Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:34, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Sure as heck won't encourage me - i've been trying to walk away from the guy for a while. I want no part of him or his discussions. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat 01:49, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Reply to Maxim - I've been trying to disengage but as chris has said himself - he uses my edit history when deciding what to edit. I've been running for the hills most every time he comes in.  It's a total tragedy. I even put up with some very obnoxious responses from a user at Talk:Patrick Pass.  Then CJN showed up and all hell broke loose. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  01:49, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed, after seeing their latest trade-off on WP:AN/I.  Maxim (talk)  01:20, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Reply to Jmfangio: Dear Juan, do you realise that if this case was closed with this enforcing measure, both of you will have 1 hour blocks?  Maxim (talk)  01:25, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * What if there is no time limit specified in the final one? Because I had the impulse to dish out a few blocks after seeing the AN/I discussion, but decided to ask them to fucking shut up and disengage, and introduce this.  Maxim (talk)  01:39, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Then ArbCom will hopefully put a binding resolution that will bar you and Chris from interacting. Hopefully, after that, End of story, by-bye.  Maxim (talk)  01:53, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Propose a block (24 hours-1 week) for the user who instigates any inappropriate behavior between the two parties, which is inline with WP:CIVIL and the first remedy, . In certain situations, a shorter block for the other user, depending on their behavior towards the instigator.  Ksy92003  (talk)  04:14, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Template
2) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
3) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
4) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
5) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Analysis of evidence
Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis

Template

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

General discussion

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others: