Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Jmfangio-Chrisjnelson

message: == Statement by Navou ==
I encourage the committee to look at the user conduct of all involved. Prior dispute resolution attempt ended at WP:CEM  with one participant stating he would not budge on the issue, after asked to look at compromises.  The mediation closed unsuccessfully at that point and quickly degenerated [read: after it was closed] into an uncivil atmosphere on that mediation page.  I believe the arbitration committee can successfully diffuse the abrasive editing atmosphere.  I encourage the committee to open this case.
== Statement by uninvolved Isotope23 ==
This may be worth looking into for the user conduct issues that have arisen out of the core content dispute.  I observed a bit of this last evening at Brett Favre where the two editors proceeded to edit over each other and generally bicker over edits.  As evidenced by their posts here today, I don't see much reason to believe they can amicably resolve this and work together on their own.--Isotope23 talk 20:01, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Addendum: I've informed both JMfangio and Chris J. Nelson that if ArbCom doesn't accept this case there's a strong possibility I'll seek a community topic ban on football-related articles for both of them.  The duration of the topic ban would last until the day after the next Super Bowl. DurovaCharge! 01:57, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Topic ban proposed to last until the day after the next Superbowl or the close of arbitration, whichever happens first. DurovaCharge! 01:06, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

text: As an addendum, I would like to concur with Wizardman as to the severity of this dispute.  It has spread throughout our coverage of American football and is a severe disruption.  The personality conflict is silly at times and one party in particular has demonstrated some serious misunderstandings of our processes at times and has made it annoying enough that I, like Wizardman, prefer to just stay out of the affected areas.  This is a completely unacceptable way to do business and to decline this case would be a dereliction of duty by the arbitration committee. --B 21:38, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My above statement is now moot as Chris and Juan have resolved their dispute. --B 02:23, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Clarification - A) the revert war was between myself and  - at no time was he acting as a mediator on any issue.  This user made a really  classy move and apologized and you can see the results of this here.    Though I was blocked, there is an understanding amongst the involved editors - that's not part of this and should not be considered.B) I am not involved in the Jackson article.  C) I have never had any contact with Pascack or Mghabmw (at least not that i can remember).— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmfangio (talk • contribs) 
Some adjustment to this comment by the original poster would be appreciated.Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  06:41, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

text: You have grossly mistated the reality naming people that have nothing to do with the dispute at all.  Ksy92003 and I are on good terms and our past has nothing to do with this.  Obviously this isn't a "minor" situation if this type of behavior is widespread throughout other infoboxes. You are not providing accurate information for uninvolved parties.  Seeing as you've decided to act as a commentator/mediator/and admin in this "situation", you should probably make some note about your potential conflict of interest so that people are fully aware of the dynamics.Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  21:10, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Statements by uninvolved users

message: This may be worth looking into for the user conduct issues that have arisen out of the core content dispute.  I observed a bit of this last evening at Brett Favre where the two editors proceeded to edit over each other and generally bicker over edits.  As evidenced by their posts here today, I don't see much reason to believe they can amicably resolve this and work together on their own.--Isotope23 talk 20:01, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by uninvolved [[User:Isotope23|Isotope23]] 

message: Hon. Arbitrators;
I humbly suggest the acceptance of this case to at the very least, keep the peace and stop the unproductive fighting that is going on. 
Dagomar 01:42, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by uninvolved [[User:Thedagomar|Dagomar]] 

message: Endorsing the statements of Seraphimblade and Navou: three different methods of dispute resolution have already been tried without success.  That's more than many cases the Committee has accepted in the past.  One consideration worth bearing in mind is the upcoming football season: an unresolved "hot" conduct dispute on prominent articles there would not be a good thing.  
On August 10 I found it necessary to full protect Peyton Manning.  The unintended consequence of this action is that it blocks newcomers' access at a popular first point of entry to Wikipedia.  Wikipedia isn't Usenet, but first impressions often set the tone for new editors' expectations.  So in the broader picture, sending this back for yet another (unlikely) attempt at dispute resolution would be a net loss for Wikipedia. DurovaCharge! 01:19, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Addendum: I've informed both JMfangio and Chris J. Nelson that if ArbCom doesn't accept this case there's a strong possibility I'll seek a community topic ban on football-related articles for both of them.  The duration of the topic ban would last until the day after the next Super Bowl. DurovaCharge! 01:57, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Topic ban proposed to last until the day after the next Superbowl or the close of arbitration, whichever happens first. DurovaCharge! 01:06, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by uninvolved [[User:Durova|Durova]] 

message: I agree almost wholeheartedly with Durova.  As a note, I am fully willing to enter a topic related ban as long as the ban is extended to Chrisjnelson.  Please read this edit where you can see my willingness to do this.  We need to get this stuff dealt with. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  07:06, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Response to Durova

message: I strongly encourage acceptance.  This has gone beyond ridiculous and is really a disruption. --B 12:50, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As an addendum, I would like to concur with Wizardman as to the severity of this dispute.  It has spread throughout our coverage of American football and is a severe disruption.  The personality conflict is silly at times and one party in particular has demonstrated some serious misunderstandings of our processes at times and has made it annoying enough that I, like Wizardman, prefer to just stay out of the affected areas.  This is a completely unacceptable way to do business and to decline this case would be a dereliction of duty by the arbitration committee. --B 21:38, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My above statement is now moot as Chris and Juan have resolved their dispute. --B 02:23, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by B 

message: From the little bit that I have seen as this has unfolded, it has become shockingly large and disruptive for something that's really not a big deal. Disputes like these and fights like the ones between these two that are the reason I no longer contribute to football-related articles. There is no obvious right or wrong person, and there's the distinct possibility they're both very wrong. But that is for arbcom to determine, as it has went from a content dispute to a matter of user conduct on both ends. This matter has to be accepted, there's really nowhere else to turn. Wizardman 16:55, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Statement by uninvolved Wizardman

message: This is so silly, at first I thought this was a content dispute, but it's turned into behavior as well. The edit-warning is over userboxes in football and some baseball like Reggie Jackson and Tom Glavine, something which is no big-deal. I blocked Jmfagio for 48 hours for violating WP:3RR the other day when a revert war came up in my watchlist. Seeing many of these pages history, is edit warning and personal attacks. I also strongly recommend arb-com to decide on the status of sports userboxes as well. If you need links, I will provide them. Again like Wizardman, there is nowhere else to turn to and I urge a topic ban on both Jmfaigo and Chrisjnelson. Also a few other users like User:Pascack and User:Mghabmw, who which the userbox editwarning started with, and User:Ksy92003, who tried to medicate this dispute but went to the edit warning himself be involved in this case. Thanks Jaranda wat's sup 18:22, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Clarification - A) the revert war was between myself and  - at no time was he acting as a mediator on any issue.  This user made a really  classy move and apologized and you can see the results of this here.    Though I was blocked, there is an understanding amongst the involved editors - that's not part of this and should not be considered.B) I am not involved in the Jackson article.  C) I have never had any contact with Pascack or Mghabmw (at least not that i can remember).— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmfangio (talk • contribs) 
Some adjustment to this comment by the original poster would be appreciated.Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  06:41, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

text: You have grossly mistated the reality naming people that have nothing to do with the dispute at all.  Ksy92003 and I are on good terms and our past has nothing to do with this.  Obviously this isn't a "minor" situation if this type of behavior is widespread throughout other infoboxes. You are not providing accurate information for uninvolved parties.  Seeing as you've decided to act as a commentator/mediator/and admin in this "situation", you should probably make some note about your potential conflict of interest so that people are fully aware of the dynamics.Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  21:10, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by somewhat involved Jaranda 

message: :Clarification - A) the revert war was between myself and  - at no time was he acting as a mediator on any issue.  This user made a really  classy move and apologized and you can see the results of this here.    Though I was blocked, there is an understanding amongst the involved editors - that's not part of this and should not be considered.B) I am not involved in the Jackson article.  C) I have never had any contact with Pascack or Mghabmw (at least not that i can remember).— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmfangio (talk • contribs) 
Some adjustment to this comment by the original poster would be appreciated.Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  06:41, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You have grossly mistated the reality naming people that have nothing to do with the dispute at all.  Ksy92003 and I are on good terms and our past has nothing to do with this.  Obviously this isn't a "minor" situation if this type of behavior is widespread throughout other infoboxes. You are not providing accurate information for uninvolved parties.  Seeing as you've decided to act as a commentator/mediator/and admin in this "situation", you should probably make some note about your potential conflict of interest so that people are fully aware of the dynamics.Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  21:10, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Response to Jaranda

message: I don't feel any action in any of this stuff is necessary, unless you with to punish me (or us) for past altercations. I have no desire to edit-war, make personal attacks or anything. I am completely willing to discuss anything with Jmfangio in a civilized manner and will compromise on basically anything. I really don't feel there is a point to this anymore because I'm done mixing it up with him. I'll probably stay out of this now. I guess let me know if there's any need for action (or inaction) on my part or if I'm going to be reprimanded for anything. Thanks.►Chris Nelson 00:25, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the sense of timing of all of this is ironic.  While the conflict was going on and was creating a tremendous distraction, arbcom couldn't be bothered.  Then, within hours of you guys settling the dispute yourselves, in effect, ending the need for the case, it is opened. --B 02:22, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Statement by Chrisjnelson

message: I just wanted to say that I will not be replying here anymore. There is absolutely no need for it to exist anymore, and if someone can't get over their personal problems with me it is none of my business. I will not break the pledge I stated a day ago - I will only edit to two things I was given permission to. (Obviously excluding TOTALLY unrelated articles.) Jmfangio and I have no relationship anymore, so there is nothing more to resolve. But I do hope that if you punish me for anything, you only look at the truth (it's scattered in there somewhere) and I hope that you reprimand him equally as he is do. Have fun, guys.►Chris Nelson 04:43, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Last statement by Chrisjnelson

message: So what am I supposed to do if someone makes a wrong edit that is not vandalism? And what if they refuse to stop making it? I can only revert it once then I have to wait a week?►Chris Nelson 17:23, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Question about restriction

message: ==Needs a minor copyedit==
The enforcement currently speaks about "any user subject to an editing restriction". This looks a little awkward and should be changed to "Chrisjnelson", seeing as he is the only user subject to an editing restriction (because Jmfangio was blocked before the case closed). Melsaran (talk) 15:47, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion after case closure

message: The enforcement currently speaks about "any user subject to an editing restriction". This looks a little awkward and should be changed to "Chrisjnelson", seeing as he is the only user subject to an editing restriction (because Jmfangio was blocked before the case closed). Melsaran (talk) 15:47, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Needs a minor copyedit