Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Jmfangio-Chrisjnelson/Proposed decision

Arbitrators active on this case
To update this listing, edit this template and scroll down until you find the right list of arbitrators.

Proposed remedies and enforcement
Enforcement pieces in the editing restrictions, and enforcement by block, conflict vis a vis block lengths if I have not misread. Navou banter 03:10, 3 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Another good catch. Kirill 04:31, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Mistaken diff?
This diff, currently link #13 under finding of fact #2 Chrisjnelson, is used to show evidence of Chrisjnelson's unwillingness to cooperate, but it is actually a statement by Jmfangio. I believe it should be moved down to the next finding. -- B 04:24, 3 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Good catch. Thanks! Kirill 04:28, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

General comment
Although I completely understand and share the frustration with both editors who are the subjects of this case, I am not convinced that the parallelism in the remedies is appropriate. Although I have not studied the diffs exhaustively, it appears that one of these editors may be attempting to develop as a Wikipedian and has contributed positively in areas outside this dispute, while the other has continued to engage in some problematic behavior. I am not saying that upon further evaluation the remedies as proposed are inappropriate for both editors&mdash;and certain both have done plenty to warrant their being closedly evaluated by this committee&mdash;but I hope that a look will be taken at the editors' contributions since the case was opened before the remedies are finalized. Newyorkbrad 18:14, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Checkuser
Is anyone going to run the checkuser I requested on September 1? I've had several requests from third parties to intervene and it's difficult to use the tools without some sort of clear answer there. Durova Charge! 14:17, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Interestingly enough, I have requested a checkuser because of a recent interaction on an article CJN and I have both edited. See Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Chrisjnelson. JmFangio| ►Chat  16:57, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I listed the request, which you forgot. I suggest Durova adds her checkuser request to Jmfangio's. I think it has a bigger chance of getting processed there.--Atlan (talk) 17:55, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Unless I'm really missing something, Ronnymexico's editing patterns look nothing whatsoever like Chrisjnelson and the claim that Chris = Ronnymexico is rather frivolous. Regardless of that, why hasn't the username Ronnymexico been blocked?  That's a blatant violation. -- B  18:04, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * B: I really do not have anything else to say to you and would ask that we do not engage each other further on non-content related issues. I'm not sure why you chose to engage me by saying the claim is "fivolous" when it is apparent that there are some issues with CJN and sock/meat accounts. Let's not kick sand at one and other okay. JmFangio| ►Chat  18:19, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

The instructions say that proper procedure for an arbitration-related checkuser is to file the request at the arbitration. So I'll wait for a response here at the case. Durova Charge! 04:41, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Can you remind me what the checkuser you requested was, Durova? Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 06:24, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Matthew, see Requests for arbitration/Jmfangio-Chrisjnelson/Workshop for the motion and discussion.  Daniel  07:29, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I've taken care of it. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 15:33, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Question on how this process is going
I am not sure if this is the correct place to post this message - but I am hoping for clarification. I have not received any feedback from anyone if the evidence I provided was helpful. Have any of the ArbCom members spent time on my user subpage? Additionally, it appears that the ArbCom is considering identical sanctions for both parties. I find this somewhat surprising and am hoping someone here can shed some light as to why this is. Is it standard practice in ArbCom cases to always find the involved parties to be "equally liable"? JmFangio| ►Chat 04:16, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Every case is considered on its' merits, and although it could be said that finding parties "equally liable" is not the stock-standard decision, it has happened on occasion in the past. Newyorkbrad's comment at may be of interest.  Daniel  07:31, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, I thought my comment was of interest when I wrote it, but it now seems kind of moot after the checkuser announcement, because Jmfangio was the user I thought might be less culpable recently. Sigh. Newyorkbrad 13:02, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Jmfangio was extremely disruptive for the first month that he was here, but had been on his best behavior during the arbitration. Chris is a long-time good faith user who was provoked. It isn't "ok" to be uncivil to a disruptive user by any stretch of the imagination - and I'm not saying it is - I'm just saying I understand it. -- B  15:50, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Blocked User:Jmfangio as a reincarnation of User:Tecmobowl
After a checkuser, I have blocked User:Jmfangio as a reincarnation of community banned User:Tecmobowl. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 08:58, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * But what's happening to the arbitration case? If one principal party is banned, the other one blocked for a week, what's the point here anyways?  Maxim (talk)  12:44, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Chrisjnelson has been unblocked, and since his behavior was being evaluated as well, there still may be a reason for the case to continue. That's really up to the arbitrators, if they feel there's no reason to continue they'll just close it. Seraphimblade Talk to me 16:21, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Chrisjnelson had already accumulated 3RR blocks before he crossed paths with Jmfangio and Chrisjnelson has demonstrated behavioral problems toward editors who weren't banned sockpuppets or unidentified long term vandals. On the other hand, Arbcom has been known to suspend cases before. Perhaps this could be suspended for a while to see how Chris interacts under normal field conditions. I wouldn't favor closing it outright at this point. Durova Charge! 21:18, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't suspend the Arbcom, despite the ban of Jmfangio. The reason for this is clear and simple: Chris' behavior is still questionable.  By no means was Jmfangio the only one who was involved with Chris and the way he behaves; others include myself and .  Whether Arbcom is the desired path or not, I believe that there still does need to be some further evaluation of Chris' behavior.
 * By the way, was a checkuser ever performed on Chrisjnelson? Ksy92003  (talk)  22:17, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Look up two threads. -- B 22:19, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, what can happen when an arbitration case gets suspended is that it basically goes into stasis pending some other event. I'm not sure I'd favor that - I definitely wouldn't like outright closure at this point - but we've identified two different aggravating factors: Jmfangio was previously community banned plus the Notre Dame vandal hadn't been identified or dealt with.  Kudos to the other editors who endured that without letting their own conduct deteriorate.  Chris is a young guy and maybe he just didn't handle it so well or the experience gave him a mistaken impression about what conduct standards are appropriate.  Would it be so bad to try a grace period and see how he behaves while the antagonizing factors are removed?  Durova  Charge! 23:04, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I can't say I'm particularly surprised by this finding, like I said on the evidence page, jmfangio was by far the most uncivil editor I've run across in sporadic editing for over a year (minus a few blatant vandals). I don't know Chris J. Nelson, but like I said on the evidence page, my interaction with jmfangio leads me to believe that there's a good chance Chris J. Nelson was provoked into violating community guidelines.Ronnymexico 16:36, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Another reincarnation?
See. This user has edited very sporadically since July 27 (under 30 total edits). On one occasion, his edits lined up with a time was blocked. I looked and 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. Would it be worth seeing if this user is a reincarnation of Tecmobowl? -- B 04:17, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Doesn't look like a first account, but only two edits coincide with a Jmfangio block. Add to the workshop as a requested checkuser if you like.  Durova  Charge! 04:37, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Added. Thanks. -- B  13:36, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Is someone going to run this checkuser? -- B 00:00, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Anybody? Anybody?  Bueller? -- B  02:03, 25 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Apologies for the delay; I hadn't seen this. Nothing to tie the users together; different ISPs, apparently different states. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 05:11, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Thx. -- B 05:18, 25 September 2007 (UTC)