Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Chrisjnelson

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

A summary of the debate may be found at the bottom of the page.

In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 03:29, 13 August 2007 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 05:51, 11 June 2008 (UTC).

Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.

Contents

[edit] Statement of the dispute

There is a dispute that started at Template:Infobox NFLactive; the gist of which is about how to display information in the infobox. The primary dispute exists regarding how to list Pro Bowl nominations/appearances and what concept is being conveyed.

[edit] Desired outcome

IMMEDIATE: See #Immediate action request. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  09:48, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

OTHER A combination of all of the following, or at least a portion of:

If non of the suggestions is acceptable, then I request that the user be removed from these discussions Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  23:41, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Description

Most of the attention has been toward user:Jmfangio however, User:Chrisjnelson has engaged in similar behavior with other editors. Most every step in WP:DR has resulted in only cursory involvement from other third-party editors. Repeated reports and little assistance have resulted in me losing my own patience and I have at times used very "course" language with said individual.

[edit] Disclosure by Jmfangio

As a related note - I have been guilty of WP:BITE in a handful of limited instances. Additionally, there was an edit war that went on a few days ago that resulted in me being barred from editing for 24hours and Chrisjnelson for 48. When I finally realized what was going on, I did notify Chrisjnelson on his talk page that I was in the middle of working on said article. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  03:55, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

  • I would say that my biting could be said as having contributed to a state of unrest, but again, I will say that while I have biten back, it was not until all other methods seemed to be failing. WP:BITE is closely related to WP:NPA and WP:CIV, so someone might say that i've violated those as well. All a matter of perspective i guess. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  22:29, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New information

Due to the unique situation, i'm really not sure what the best way to do include this new information this is but I feel it is necessary to mention. Chris continues to want to make contentious edits to the infobox. He continues to go back that "i refuse to discuss", and that i'm asserting WP:OWN, even though there is no evidence to support this. In an attempt to get all the "personal" issues and discussions going on - we archived the page and started a new one. Despite my repeated request for patience on all editors parts, they insisted on moving forward with conversations. I tried politely to participate, and yet again we're back to chris making uncivil commments, telling me i have no idea what i'm talking about, and that he's going to make edits regardless of what I think. This version of the page will be very easy to follow. The last edit I made was a partial mistake, that I wanted to correct, but Chris jumped in with a snide remark in the edit summary accompanying that edit. I posted an information note to his talk page to explain what had happened. i think it is IMPERATIVE that people read his response here. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  10:58, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Evidence of disputed behavior

  1. [1]
  2. [2]
  3. [3]
  4. [4]
  5. [5]
  6. [6]
  7. Template page Evidence there is extensive and easy to identify.
  8. [7] Continued behavior of agitation was addressed by an uninvolved third-party.
  9. [8] [9] [10] [11] User continues to harrass and make personal attacks and bites. All from a short period on a single talk page.
  10. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Brett_Favre&diff=next&oldid=152791191, [12] edit warring and bullying others and again making statements that drift toward WP:OWN
  11. [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18],[19],[20],all equate to violations of WP:CANVAS - please note "If you would be in favor of this edit, I'd ask you to kindly voice this at Template talk:Infobox NFLactive#Undrafted free agents." made by Chrisjnelson.
  12. [21] Accusing others of personal attacks when none took place.
  13. [22] WP:STALK.

[edit] Applicable policies and guidelines

  1. WP:NPA
  2. WP:UNCIVIL
  3. WP:BITE
  4. WP:CON
  5. WP:OWN
  6. WP:NPOV
  7. WP:AGF
  8. WP:CANVAS
  9. WP:STALK

[edit] Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

(provide diffs and links)

  1. [23]
  2. [24]
  3. [25]
  4. [26] - Warning on behavior following a personal attack.

[edit] Users certifying the basis for this dispute

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

  1. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  03:14, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
  2. Morgan Wick 05:22, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
  3. jddphd (talk · contribs) 23:38, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Other users who endorse this summary

[edit] Response

This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete. Users signing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Outside Views") should not edit the "Response" section.

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}

Users who endorse this summary:

[edit] Outside view by Seraphimblade

To put it shortly, this isn't a case where I can clearly say there's a "good guy" and a "bad guy". While I agree that Chrisjnelson's behavior has not been acceptable through this scenario, it takes two editors to make a fight, an edit war, or any of the other problems that have occurred between these two. It only takes one disengaging to stop it, and thus far, neither one has been willing to do so.

I hope that one or both editors will shortly choose to do so, or that these two can find a way to work civilly with one another rather than bickering and edit warring. The first step toward this will be both parties acknowledging and taking responsibility for their respective roles in this dispute, including incivility, personal attacks, failure to assume good faith, and edit warring, all of which both parties have been guilty of. From what I see thus far in this RfC, this has not yet happened. Seraphimblade Talk to me 13:44, 13 August 2007 (UTC)


Users who endorse this summary:

  1. Yes. Navou banter 14:03, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
  2. Yes. Wlmaltby3 – talk/contribs 23:13, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
  3. Yes, especially the personal accountability part, as there is a great deal of unconstructive animosity at this point. jddphd (talk · contribs) 23:37, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
  4. Yes (with comment) - I don't agree with all of that - but the gist is right on. I have never questioned his GF and to my recollection - I THINK the closest I got to a PA was a bite. I might have attacked him, but I don't recall if i did. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  00:52, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
  5. Morgan Wick 01:33, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
  6. Yes. --Cailil talk 14:19, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
  7. Yes it takes two to tango and both need to compromise or both should take a break from this section which harbors the conflict.RMANCIL 18:25, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
  8. Yes; it doesn't seem like either side is fully willing to step down and give the other space. It's my opinion that Jmfangio attacked Chrisjnelson in the sense that he falsely accused him of making personal attacks, which frustrated Chrisjnelson to a point where he ended up making personal attacks. A couple attempts have been made by both parties to try to have a calm discussion, but, as I said in the below summary, "if you don't say what [Jmfangio] wants to hear, [Jmfangio]'s not interested," which led to all this hostility. Ksy92003(talk) 03:40, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: User is possibly acting as an unbiased "proxy voter" of sorts as they have an existing relationship and both assert a unified "opinion" against me. Ksy filed an unsucessfull rfc against me.Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  06:05, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Alright... since you won't let me remove this because you're behaving quite hypocritical in my opinion, I'll post here:
  • I am not favoring anybody in this situation. The fact that I've had a pre-existing relationship with Chrisjnelson doesn't change my opinion. My opinion only seems to be favored that way because he hasn't done anything wrong towards me, while you have numerous times. Chrisjnelson does what he does, I do what I do. The fact that we talk about non-related things via e-mail doesn't change the fact. It's not my fault that both Chrisjnelson and I share the same opinion about you. It's not my fault that you have agitated me and that you have agitated Chrisjnelson, so of course we share the same opinion about you. Your so-called "unified 'opinion'" against you is just because you have irritated both of us and both of us feel that your actions towards us are unjust. Ksy92003(talk) 06:19, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comment from User:B

This is a mess. I don't know any other way to put it. A basic summary of events is that User:Jmfangio made two forks of Template:Infobox NFL player - Template:Infobox NFLretired and Template:Infobox NFLactive. Chris and Juan started out working very amicably on them. Several days later, it degenerated quite rapidly.

From what I've seen, it appears that Chris has a desire to make Template:Infobox NFLactive very much like the old template and Juan wants a template that will appear with rigid consistency between articles. There's no right or wrong answer between those two objectives.

I think that one problem here is that Juan has a misunderstanding of some of our practices. For example, [27] he suggested that Chris create his own template as a result of the dispute. He has currently declared his intention to revert all edits that Chris makes to this template (later clarified to be undiscussed edits) for the duration of this RFC. This is obviously a completely unacceptable behavior.

A lot of people have bent over backwards to give Juan's ideas a hearing, both here and elsewhere, but to be honest, if you don't say what he wants to hear, he's not interested. For example, at Template_talk:Infobox_NFLactive#Vote, he crossed out Chris's preferred option for resolving the issue. While the template was protected (a horribly ill-conceived protection, by the way, for a variety of reasons), Juan wanted to hold hostage any needed bug fixes (for example, for every rookie, the template was messing up) until an agreement was reached on an unrelated issue.

As for Chris's behavior, Chris needs to remember to keep his cool, which he has for the most part, with a few exceptions noted in Juan's diffs above. The request that he join WP:ADOPT is silly. The claim that he asserts ownership over the template is silly.

As for my advice, Juan, listen to what other people have to say, be willing to compromise, and realize that this is Wikipedia, not Congress. Chris, people will say things that annoy you and it's rarely helpful to suggest that someone is mentally unstable. --B 00:19, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary
  1. Yes. Wlmaltby3 – talk/contribs 00:49, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
  2. Absolutely, except with regards to the "ill conceived protection". I won't endorse that. Everything thing else, yes. Navou banter 00:59, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
  3. I can't really speak to whether the protection was right either, save to say I may have caused it because I went soliciting for a sysop's opinion as I thought there was an edit war going on. However I agree completely with the rest of this, though I would add that "Chris needs to remember to keep his cool" is, in my opinion, a charitable expression. His comments were abusive. jddphd (talk · contribs) 04:09, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
  4. Yes; both Jmfangio and Chrisjnelson are at fault here, but I think that Jmfangio was trying to hold too much power in this situation. I especially agree with the "if you don't say what [Jmfangio] wants to hear, [Jmfangio]'s not interested" part; this is an issue that he's had with me and has taken it so far as to delete the discussion because I didn't say what he wanted me to say. Him deleting a discussion from his talk page because he didn't want to answer to me is an event that resulted in Jmfangio taking me to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Disruptive behavior - copying of archives to own talk page. Jmfangio has a recent history of removing a discussion, completely ignoring it just because there is a consensus supporting an action opposite him. He claimed I was doing something illegal, and when I politely asked him what I did wrong, he ignored me, removed the discussion, and reported me to ANI. This shows that Jmfangio has no intention on peacefully discussing conflicts with other users and has a "cowardly" approach. Chrisjnelson isn't the only victim; he's just the first, me being the second. As somebody who personally experienced Jmfangio's discussion-forming habits, I can say that it's really disruptive and seems to be nothing more than a refusal to admit that people don't share the same opinion as him. It makes no sense to report a user of doing wrong when you refuse to even tell them what they did wrong, and this just shows that Jmfangio has a poor history of having discussions with people who just want him to clarify his edits. This RfC shouldn't have even began because Jmfangio, the user who created this case, has repeatedly failed to hold any sort of meaningful discussion with any other user, as far as I've seen, including both myself and Chrisjnelson. Sorry for all the ranting, but it's really convincing background information on the situation, in my opinion. Ksy92003(talk) 07:20, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: User is possibly acting as an unbiased "proxy voter" of sorts as they have an existing relationship and both assert a unified "opinion" against me. Ksy filed an unsucessfull rfc against me.Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  06:05, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Alright... since you won't let me remove this because you're behaving quite hypocritical in my opinion, I'll post here:
  • I am not favoring anybody in this situation. The fact that I've had a pre-existing relationship with Chrisjnelson doesn't change my opinion. My opinion only seems to be favored that way because he hasn't done anything wrong towards me, while you have numerous times. Chrisjnelson does what he does, I do what I do. The fact that we talk about non-related things via e-mail doesn't change the fact. It's not my fault that both Chrisjnelson and I share the same opinion about you. It's not my fault that you have agitated me and that you have agitated Chrisjnelson, so of course we share the same opinion about you. Your so-called "unified 'opinion'" against you is just because you have irritated both of us and both of us feel that your actions towards us are unjust. Ksy92003(talk) 06:19, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
  • This isn't a vote. It's an opportunity for one or more people to take self-corrective action before sanctions are required. --B 18:10, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comment from Jmfangio

More links have been added. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  22:39, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comment regarding WP:CANVAS

I was aware this rule existed but I didn't really didn't know much about it. I violated this today and I'd just like to say I take full responsibility. I've now read the policy and I won't do it again.►Chris Nelson 01:59, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Immediate action request

This situation continues to mushroom. Temporary and immediate action is a necessity, not an option. I am all for other suggestions, but in the meantime: A) Mandatory cease and desist of editing to all articles both directly and indirectly related to American football topics should be issued to Ksy92003, Chrisjnelson, and myself (Jmfangio). I will accept this on the condition that the editrequest made at Template talk:Infobox NFLactive is implemented. This is not because they are wrong and I am right, it is because we cannot agree on any aspect of the "proposal". Removing the contentious material will prevent the further implementation. If it is deemed to be inappropriate (as I believe it will be) then we will have a plethera of broken templates. If it is removed now, it can always be added later. I believe that this cease and desist should remain in place until 1) This RFC is completed AND 2) Ksy and Jmfangio's differences (which appear to be similar to this situation) are addressed as well. Whether this is a week, a day, or a month is irrelevant. I cannot allow contentious edits to be included in a widespread fashion. I am happy to leave individual articles alone, but until the debated issues have been resolved, I cannot say that continued edits to the information should be allowed. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  09:48, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

  • As note: There should be some "exception": I am working with someone on a template at User:Jmfangio/standings template. As this is a "project" in the works - I would like to be able to work on that and discussions related to that template. If need be I will surrender this "right", but I do not see that as problematic. Once we have gotten a template in place there, I will then take a full "cease and desist" from AmF articles. If similar circumstances present themselves for the other users - then they should be extended the same courtesy. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  10:00, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
  • What do I have to do with this? Why should I be punished because of a debate between two other users? I don't have anything to do with the debate between Chrisjnelson and Jmfangio so it doesn't make any sense for me to be punished as a result of their conflict. Ksy92003(talk) 18:04, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
  • You opted to join in this RFC, so that should answer your question as to "What do I have to do with this?". Your behavior is very similar to Chrisjnelsons, you have voiced your opinion after holding private discussions with that user and your behavior towards other editors is exactly the same as chris' (although you have stop short of some of the offensive remarks he has made). You are not being punished because of a debate of other's, you refuse to step back and discuss, rather you choose to ignore discussions and move straight to editing. As such, you are very much involved in this debacle. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  19:02, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Yeah, I gave my opinion on this whole situation, but that doesn't answer the question as to why I should be the one punished if this whole RfC is between Chrisjnelson and you. Ksy92003(talk) 19:14, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I trust no admin will ever buy into this insane bullshit.►Chris Nelson 19:15, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

By the way, this is not "incivility." It's reality. If only everyone knew the way Jmfangio really is, none of this would be happening because he'd have been blocked a long time ago. He has NO place here.►Chris Nelson 00:13, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Without commenting on the correctness of your statement, the problem is that there is a right way and a wrong way to tell "truth". I can say "I don't like bananas" or I can say "bananas make me barf and are the most vile and disgusting thing on the planet". One is a positive way to communicate ideas and the other is not. Obviously, nobody is going to support the "protect my version" plan, but there is a polite way to communicate that idea. --B 03:34, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Update

Ksy92003 (talk · contribs) and Jmfangio (talk · contribs) have resolved all outstanding issues per this edit and the discussion preceding the edit. 05:09, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.

[edit] Summary

The dispute escalated to arbitration.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.