Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Jmfangio-Chrisjnelson/Workshop

Regarding lengths and terms of remedies
There has been some question on my talk page regarding the length of me recommended remedy on the /workshop page. I'll try to address them the best I know how here.

In reference to User:Jmfangio banned from Template:Infobox NFLactive User:Chrisjnelson banned from Template:Infobox NFLactive

The original proposed was a length of two months. While it is my hope that contributers can come back from a remedy and contribute successfully and productively, I don't know if two months is long enough a break. I have proposed on year because I believe this will be long enough for the editors to eventually forget about the dispute and move on the editing other areas. Jmfangio posed a question asking where I get a year. Is it arbitrary? Yes, I believe it is subjective in this sense. It is disengage, at its extreme. And my hope here is to get away from the dispute that is causing what is perceived as disruption. This is me looking at the project as a whole.

I'll also note that the arbitrators are not deciding yet and the workshop page is a sort of, brainstorming area. The arbitrators are not bound to use anything here on the workshop page.

I hope this clears some things up. Regards, Navou banter 04:33, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


 * What's frustrating to me is that these suggestions are made without any call for responsibility. What i mean is that there is a significant possibility that one editor is more culpable in this scenario.  Regardless, the punishments should be based goals - if the goal is to get an editor to act peacefully, then they need to show a propensity for humility and a respect for others.  Disagreeing is fine - i do it a great deal of the time on here - but there is a reasonable way of discussing and an unreasonable.  365 Days is excessive - this is not prison and that does not seem manageable (is someone really going to sit there and monitor my edits or CJNs for 365 days?).  It doesn't solve the problem.  I think that these suggestions need to be directed toward solutions that are based on purpose and not based on arbitrary periods of time.  If an arbitrator sees all of these suggestions - it is possible that they will not have the opportunity to consider the "reasonability" of these statements.  Ideally - I think they need to be expunged or at least struck. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  08:16, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

One week block on Chrisjnelson
I've come close to blocking him for edit warring, incivility, personal attacks, and WP:POINT before, so this exchange was the final straw. It's really intolerable to have one named party follow the other to a conversation that had nothing to do with him and repeatedly try to bring the other back into a dispute when the person has been doing his best to disengage. I've informed him that he may submit evidence to this case via e-mail during his block. Durova Charge! 02:59, 5 September 2007 (UTC)