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

message: 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)
replies: text: Another good catch. Kirill 04:31, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed remedies and enforcement 

message: 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)
replies: text: Good catch.  Thanks! Kirill 04:28, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mistaken diff? 

message: 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—and certain both have done plenty to warrant their being closedly evaluated by this committee—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)
thread_title:  General comment 

message: 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. DurovaCharge! 14:17, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Interestingly enough, I have requested a checkuser because of a recent interaction on an article CJN and I have both edited.  See Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Chrisjnelson. JmFangio| ►Chat  16:57, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: Can you remind me what the checkuser you requested was, Durova? Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 06:24, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Matthew, see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jmfangio-Chrisjnelson/Workshop#Request for checkuser on Chrisjnelson for the motion and discussion. Daniel 07:29, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've taken care of it. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:33, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Checkuser 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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 #General comment may be of interest. Daniel 07:31, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Question on how this process is going 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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. DurovaCharge! 04:37, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Added.  Thanks. --B 13:36, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is someone going to run this checkuser? --B 00:00, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Anybody?  Anybody?  Bueller? --B 02:03, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Thx. --B 05:18, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another reincarnation?