Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/John Buscema/Workshop

This is a page for working on Arbitration decisions. The Arbitrators, parties to the case, and other editors may draft proposals and post them to this page for review and comments. Proposals may include proposed general principles, findings of fact, remedies, and enforcement provisions&mdash;the same format as is used in Arbitration Committee decisions. The bottom of the page may be used for overall analysis of the /Evidence and for general discussion of the case.

Any user may edit this workshop page. Please sign all suggestions and comments. Arbitrators will place proposed items they believe should be part of the final decision on the /Proposed decision page, which only Arbitrators may edit, for voting.

Party request for additional time
1) In a note on my talkpage, Tenebrae has requested a few days' extra time to present his evidence on account of a death in the family.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Fine with me. Kirill 05:09, 11 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Noted. Newyorkbrad (talk) 05:04, 11 December 2007 (UTC) (as clerk for this case)

Message of Buscema Talk Page
2)This message -

I've unprotected the page; it's unconscionable that it was kept protected this long. The parties to the arbitration would be wise to stay away from editing the article until the case has closed; any disruptive editing will be dealt with harshly. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 20:23, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to kindly request that the above message be rephrased. --Skyelarke (talk) 14:13, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

The tone comes across as intimidating and threatening - especially 'any disruptive editing will be dealt with harshly' - which I think goes against civility policies.

On another note, an administrator taking administrative action on a article in which they are personally involved, is something that could be considered ill-advised.

And on another note, an arbitrator applying exceptional arbitrational measures before the case is closed, before fact #4 had been ratified, and without due procedure, is something that could be considered ill-advised.

--Skyelarke (talk) 20:17, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect to the ArbCom, I'd like to suggest that jpgordon withdraw from the case due to concerns that certain lines in regards to civility, neutrality, and conflict of interest have been crossed.

--Skyelarke (talk) 14:16, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I don't care really care who archives it or how it gets archived, as long as it gets archived - if anyone wants to archive it (again) go for it, knock yourselves out, rock on... --Skyelarke (talk) 14:08, 7 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Uh, why? --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 17:54, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * It was supposed to be intimidating and threatening. I'm disappointed it didn't work. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 01:53, 6 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * I have been away from this for reasons including family obligations, and can only be on Wiki for a short while right now. I have to say I'm surprised and disappointed at Skyelarke's attempt at an end-run edit to John Buscema here while Arbitration is still going on. I'm not sure that shows respect for the process, and I'm gratified to see our fellow editors keeping things on the up-and-up. My thanks for the propriety they are showing. --Tenebrae (talk) 02:24, 7 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I've also just seen that Skyelarke is unilaterally taking it upon himself to archive Talk:John Buscema even though the Arbitration is still active. Another editor rv'd that here ... but Skyelarke rv'd that! Is there any way to rein in Skyelarke so that the Arbitration process can continue without having to protect pages? --Tenebrae (talk) 04:21, 7 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Why??--  Phoenix741  (Talk Page)  14:20, 5 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Just because it seems harsh doesn't mean it is not true. I think that it works fine. I just really don't see a problem with it.--  Phoenix741  (Talk Page)  21:08, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * About the archiving, could we get a bot to do that, there is at least 1 out there.--  Phoenix741  (Talk Page)  14:20, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Motion to dismiss
2)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * We are not entirely inept, and can spot bad evidence when we see it. There is no need to respond to every point of another party's evidence; nor is there any benefit to producing a longer presentation if it's devoid of substance. Kirill 15:22, 15 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Though I don't see a case here. This is mainly a content matter.  The Uninvited Co., Inc. 23:11, 19 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * I have asked for days for User:Skyelarke to cut his originally 2,750- and now 1,900-word Evidence to the 1,000-word limit proscribed in the box at the head of the page Requests for arbitration/John Buscema/Evidence‎. He will not do so, and his proxy User:John254 says it's perfectly fine for Skyelarke to make accusations at nearly twice the allowed length (which the box says is supposed to be "refactored or removed"). I feel this is not fair, and that Skyelarke's behavior is goading. I also believe, judging from the vehemence, frequency, and surprisingly personal nature of User:John254's postings, that he is a meat puppet for Skyelarke. --Tenebrae (talk) 04:36, 14 December 2007 (UTC)


 * User:John254 says he is "a clearly, unambiguously, uninvolved editor." What on earth in his vehement, vociferous, over-the-top proposals and dogged declarations would lead anyone to think he "unambiguously uninvolved," let alone to "clearly" think this!


 * All I have been asking for is for Skyelarke to follow the rules and to present a 1,000-word maximum Evidence case that one can reasonably respond to. By refusing to do this, Skyelarke allows User:John254 to go on and on with contentious, inflammatory, out-of-context accusations and misrepresentations, while I wait to present my Evidence against the core case, and not all this sideshow.


 * I can only ask again that Skyelarke follow the rules and present a focused, 1,000-word Evidence instead of his nearly 2,000-word, scattershot conspiracy theory. John254 seems to think it's OK for one person to break the rules while the other tries to work within them, and that doesn't seem right. Does it?--Tenebrae (talk) 15:09, 15 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Inept? Far from it. Anyone in the mainstream press who criticizes Wikipedia needs only to see the impressive seriousness with which Arbitration and other peer-processes here run. If you say I don't need to respond to every assertion, I place my trust in that process, and I'll place my own, considerably shorter Evidence here in the next day or two. I'd only ask John254, with his own numerous cites already, to be fair and not add additional Evidence if I already have a 1,900-word Evidence page to address, even if only in part. With thanks, --Tenebrae (talk) 15:37, 15 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Oppose -- This sort of disruption by Tenebrae is precisely what this case is intended to address. Tenebrae had a content dispute with Skyelarke over John Buscema. Instead of negotiating a resolution with Skyelarke, or inviting the participation of additional editors in the discussion via a neutral forum, such as a request for comment on articles or a posting to the talk page of the relevant wikiproject, he choose to personally inform some particular editors of this dispute by means of notices on their talk pages.  When all such editors agreed with his version of the article, Tenebrae declared that a consensus existed for it.  Now, when  I, as a clearly, unambiguously, uninvolved editor, dared to critique Tenebrae's actions, he responded by accusing me of proxying and meat puppetry. .  This is quite a serious accusation, especially as I am an established user with over 23,000 edits during the course of 20 months.  Tenebrae either needs to provide evidence to support his outrageous accusation, or to be sanctioned for making it frivolously.  Tenebrae is correct about one thing, however: having falsely accused me of being a "a meat puppet for Skyelarke", I am now personally involved in this dispute. John254 05:03, 14 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Oppose. It's better to bring it all up now than let it continue to fester. I am concerned, however, that John254's taking the issue personally has caused him to overlook some facts. In particular, Tenebrae did in fact seek the involvement of the relevant WikiProject. This may not outweigh the canvassing issue as far as John254 is concerned, but it flatly contradicts his statement above. --GentlemanGhost (talk) 07:24, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * You're right. Tenebrae did post a notice concerning the content dispute on WikiProject Comics/Notice Board.  Unfortunately, almost all of the editors participating in the discussion on talk:John Buscema were personally contacted by Tenebrae on their talk pages.  As for "taking the issue personally", this is quite understandable, in light of Tenebrae's outrageous accusation against me . John254 07:34, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Template
3)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
2)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
3)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
4)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Questions to the parties
=Proposed final decision=

Decorum
1) Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably and calmly in their interactions with other users, to keep their cool when editing, and to avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. Unseemly conduct—including, but not limited to, personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, trolling, harassment, and gaming the system—is prohibited.  Users should not respond to such behavior in kind; concerns regarding the actions of other users should be brought up in the appropriate forums.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Standard stuff. Kirill 02:17, 12 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Editorial process
2) Wikipedia works by building consensus through the use of polite discussion. The dispute resolution process is designed to assist consensus-building when normal talk page communication has not worked. Sustained editorial conflict is not an appropriate method of resolving disputes.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * More standard stuff. Kirill 02:17, 12 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Requesting additional participation in discussions concerning content disputes
3) When it is necessary to request the participation of additional editors in a discussion relating to a content dispute, notice(s) should be posted in neutral fora, such as a request for comment on articles. It is considered inappropriate to hand-select the editors to inform of a discussion on their talk pages, then claim that there is a consensus favoring one's position in a content dispute simply because all of the editors one personally contacted agree.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * True, but possibly irrelevant to the case, depending on whether the editors were "selected" in any meaningful sense. Kirill 04:19, 12 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Convention suggests that a relevant WikiProject is also a suitable mechanism. Mackensen (talk) 02:30, 13 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, I think (for most purposes) legitimate WikiProjects are considered to be a neutral forum. Kirill 15:22, 15 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed. John254 03:37, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Mention of 'Consensus can change' principle would be appreciated
4) Due to the fact that the text and images have evolved considerably since the March RfC (and image content is intimately linked to text content) and there has been unfortunately very little acknowledgement of this - Despite the disputes in June, the revision process was nonetheless completed and if the resulting article is to receive fair community reception, I think this clause is important.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * proposed - --Skyelarke (talk) 03:45, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree that it's not clear there was a consensus between the two versions - Some parties have maintained the opposite - Is it within the mandate of Arbcom to make a clarifying statement as to the bearing of the March RcF on future editing of the article - so that it won't continue to be a contentious stumbling block? --Skyelarke (talk) 13:07, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * This is certainly a legitimate and well-recognized principle. I don't know that it's applicable to this case because before the article was protected, it's not clear there was a consensus between the two versions, one way or the other. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:47, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Template
5) {text of proposed principle}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
6) {text of proposed principle}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
7) {text of proposed principle}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Tenebrae has engaged in disruptive canvassing
1) Tenebrae has engaged in disruptive canvassing to support his position in the content dispute on.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * As a practical and cynical aside, the likelihood of an arbitrator reading someone's evidence is inversely related to the length of the evidence. 1000 words is suggested as a useful limit; anything longer tends toward verbosity. Mackensen (talk) 02:32, 13 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * The vehemence of John254's assertions aside &mdash; and there seems something decidedly notdisinterested in it, my gut feeling says &mdash; I'm not sure who he would expect to comment in an RfC if not editors knowledgeable in the subject. And certainly, Skyelarke could have sent a friendly notice to anyone he'd wanted.


 * Incidentally, some of the WikiProject Comics editors I sent notices to have disagreed with me, collegially, in the past. Whether they agree with me or not, the point is they're highly knowledgeable about the subject and behave professionally. To call it disruptive is inflammatory and inaccurate. Who was disrupted? No one. Several other editors all disagreed with Skyelarke; given the unanimity of of it, that was an orderly process, not a disruptive one.


 * On another matter, I'd like to present my evidence on the evidence page, but after a couple of days of my asking, Skyelarke doesn't seem to want to play by the rules and cut his 2,400- to 2,750-word evidence down to the maximum 1,000. John254, does his doing that seem right or fair to you? --Tenebrae (talk) 02:17, 13 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I appreciate Mackensen's comments. Just to clarify Skyelarke's actions, the Evidence page actually does more than suggest: It gives a great big box at the top that instructs, "Keep your evidence to a maximum of 1000 words and 100 diffs. Evidence longer than this will be refactored or removed entirely." --Tenebrae (talk) 02:47, 13 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Incidentally, John254, you did not answer my question: Skyelarke doesn't seem to want to cut his now 1,900-word evidence down to the maximum 1,000. Does his doing that seem right or fair to you? I can't help thinking that you are avoiding the question &mdash; which makes me, and I'm sure anyone else reading this, question certain things. --Tenebrae (talk) 03:54, 14 December 2007 (UTC)


 * In response to John254's comment at 04:02, 14 December 2007 below: Wow. I would say nearly twice the proscribed length is egregious. Wow. And as I note elsewhere on this page, you say Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy in order to excuse concrete, quantifiable rule-breaking &mdash; while simultaneously using bureaucratic minutiae to accuse others of non-quantifiable, judgment-call transgressions. Wow. Astonishing. Flabbergasting. You can't have it both ways. The playing field has to be the same for both parties.


 * Could we please have an arbitrator come in and set the playing field? Thank you for any help. --Tenebrae (talk) 04:17, 14 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't usually use "flabbergasted" twice in one day, but John254 below says the 1,000-limit on the Evidence page "is merely a rule created for arbitration proceedings" &mdash; and so doesn't have to be followed since it's "merely a rule"! I honestly don't know, given the global nature of Wikipedia, if English is his first language, but one can only make allowances so far. A rule, by definition, is meant to be followed.


 * Another word I don't use often is the often-misused "Kafkaesque." When someone says that "a rule created for arbitration proceedings" doesn't have to be followed in arbitration proceedings, we are well on our way to Franz! --Tenebrae (talk) 04:45, 14 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed, per my evidence. While we cannot know with certainty whether Tenebrae employed a biased methodology in determining which editors to contact regarding this dispute, it is evident that, at the very least, his actions would cause a reasonable editor to suspect that Tenebrae choose the editors to contact based on the belief that they would favor his version of the article.  To expect Skyelarke to accept that there is a consensus against the version of John Buscema he favors, when almost all of the editors comprising this "consensus" were personally invited to participate in the dispute by Tenebrae, stretches WP:AGF to its breaking point.  The appearance of impropriety in Tenebrae's canvassing has almost certainly inflamed and prolonged this dispute.  For this reason, the participation of additional editors in discussions concerning content disputes should be effectuated in an indisputably neutral manner, such as a request for comment on articles. John254 12:48, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * With regard to the length of Skyelarke's evidence, I note that Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. This case concerns more substantive issues than whether a party's evidence somewhat exceeds the prescribed length, though not egregious so. John254 04:02, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * While No personal attacks is a fundamental policy, blatant violations of both the letter and the spirit of which are not to be excused under the principle that Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, the limitation on the length of evidence is not supported by policy at all, but is merely a rule created for arbitration proceedings. Since Skyelarke's evidence exceeds the prescribed length, I'm sure that Tenebrae is also welcome to employ somewhat more than 1000 words if necessary to present his evidence. John254 04:34, 14 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The rule was created so that these kinds of things would not drag on forever, which right now it looks like Sky is trying to do just that. This is what I think the letter of the law is, which shows that it needs to be cut down, so we can finish this and get back to the thing that is important, the article. Phoenix741 (Talk Page)  04:39, 14 December 2007 (UTC)


 * After Requests for adminship/Tenebrae2 failed primarily due to his canvassing, I'm sure that Tenebrae has learned his lesson. --GentlemanGhost (talk) 05:12, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I respectfully disagree -- see   , which occurred on November 21, 2007, well after Requests for adminship/Tenebrae2 was closed. John254 06:32, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Tenebrae has made personal attacks
2) Tenebrae has made personal attacks on Skyelarke during the course of disruptive canvassing for support in Requests for arbitration/Asgardian-Tenebrae.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed, per Requests_for_arbitration/John_Buscema/Evidence. John254 12:58, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * This same issue was raised as part of the previous arbitration. However, when the case was closed, no action was taken against Tenebrae. --GentlemanGhost (talk) 05:23, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The matter may have been considered to be outside the scope of the case, since it didn't relate to the dispute between Asgardian and Tenebrae. It clearly is relevant here, however. John254 06:27, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Phoenix741 has made personal attacks
3) Phoenix741 has made personal attacks against Skyelarke and John254.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Perhaps Phoenix741 is simply speaking bluntly. I've tried to be polite and politic despite the outright inaccuracies and selective contexts Skyelarke and John254 have volleyed against me, but given Skyelarke's continued refusal to play by the rules on the Evidence page, I imagine we're all getting a little frustrated. As Skyelarke did in mediation, there is goading going on.


 * It all evades the real issue in any case. Skyelarke's version of the John Buscema article &mdash; which a multitude of WikiProject Comics editors rejected for detailed reasons at Talk:John Buscema &mdash; is visible at User:Skyelarke/Buscema_draft. It's a hagiographic mess that includes POV, NOR and, most troublingly, false citations. Skyelarke wants me removed so that he can insert that rejected version. He can't do that on the merits of that version, so this smokescreen is the alternative.


 * Whenever Skyelarke decides to abide by the Evidence word-limit, I can make my own brief, focused case. His dragging this out by flouting the rules is understandably getting other editors frustrated.--Tenebrae (talk) 03:49, 14 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed, per Phoenix741's evidence, which states in relevant part that "Tenebrae told us about the RfC because of our involvement in the Wikiproject, not because we were going to be on his side, and really people who are saying that he was looking for influence in his favor, are just idiots." . John254 03:01, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * A single instance of excessive rhetoric does not support the use of the plural ("attacks") in the proposed finding, and would normally be insufficient to warrant formal rebuke in an arbitration decision. If the problem is broader then evidence to that effect should be presented. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:51, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I used the plural noun "attacks" in describing Phoenix741's comment as it disparaged two editors simultaneously. Whether we wish to describe this as a single personal attack with two targets, or as two personal attacks, one against each editor, Phoenix741's language has been inappropriate. John254 04:12, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * If you are calling that an "attack" then yes it would be proper to call it on attack. Again I ask, why am I being cautioned and everything? Isn't this about the article itself and the conduct between 2 people, both of them not being me? Phoenix741 (Talk Page)  04:18, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Tenebrae has an extensive history of derogatory characterizations of editors with whom he is in disputes
4) Tenebrae has an extensive history of derogatory characterizations of editors with whom he is in disputes.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed, per my evidence. John254 13:05, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Tenebrae has an extensive history of disruptive canvassing
5) Tenebrae has an extensive history of disruptive canvassing, having canvassed for his request for adminship, and, more recently, to solicit support in Requests_for_arbitration/Asgardian-Tenebrae through personal attacks on Skyelarke.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed, per my evidence. John254 07:10, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Template
6) {text of proposed finding of fact}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
7) {text of proposed finding of fact}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
8) {text of proposed finding of fact}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Proposed remedies
Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

John Buscema unprotected
1) is to be unprotected.  It may not be fully protected again due to content disputes for the next year.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * We have no way of predicting what may or may not occur over the next year that may require protection to be reapplied. Kirill 04:20, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I unprotected the article today. I strongly advise the principles in this case to stay away from the article while the arbitration is in progress. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 17:08, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * Agree page should be unprotected after Arb resolution.--Tenebrae (talk) 23:14, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that the current version represents a particularly restrictive version reverted to by Tenebrae immediately prior to his page protection request -

(Digression - TB's reverts suppressed good-faith, referenced contributions; my reverts suppressed no information at all, no evidence has been provided to my knowledge to indicate the contrary. Because TB's version, the current one, done in the context of an edit war, has tacit, de facto endorsement, I am put at a clear disadvantage. Unfortunately, this is a prevalent problem with current Wikipedia administrative procedures. As per -

http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/whowriteswikipedia

http://radar.oreilly.com/archives/2008/01/wikipedia_community_publishing.html )

I would suggest that this version -

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_Buscema&oldid=181851662

be used as a starting point for future editing - simpler and clearer - the footnote references have been substantially corrected and revised - all other versions contain mistakes and 'funky' formatting. As per

--Skyelarke (talk) 21:38, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed, as this article has been fully protected for the last five months. Per Protection_policy, page protection in content disputes is intended to provide "a "cool down" period to stop an edit war", and should not be used to lock all editors out of the affected page for an extended period of time: "It is considered to be inappropriate to protect a page repeatedly due to the same content dispute, as this disrupts the normal, non-contentious editing of the page. Instead, blocks should be placed against users responsible for persistent edit warring." John254 03:23, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Agree. The result of this arbitration, whatever that may be, should allow for the article to be edited without the edit war starting up again. --GentlemanGhost (talk) 06:39, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Tenebrae restricted
2) is subject to an editing and related activities restriction indefinitely.  He is forbidden to edit  or the talk page thereof, and may not discuss this article in any context whatsoever on any forum under the control and jurisdiction of the Wikimedia Foundation, including, but not limited to, any page on Wikipedia, any of the Wikimedia Foundation's mailing lists, any email address maintained by the Wikimedia Foundation, and the invocation of the "E-mail this user" function on the userpage of any Wikipedia editor.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * As I have pointed out to Skyelarke before, and of which he is fully aware and disingenuous to appear not to be, I did not canvass, per WP:CANVASS Friendly notices:


 * "Neutrally worded notifications sent to a small number of editors are considered 'friendly notices' if they are intended to improve rather than to influence a discussion..."


 * See any of them for yourselves. Nowhere in these notices did I ask anyone to support or oppose a position, but simply to comment. For Skyelarke or his friend John254 to say they are not neutrally worded is false and an attempt to mislead. --Tenebrae (talk) 14:06, 11 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I also just had a thought: If someone believes their case is reasonable and and true, it seems curious to me they would attempt to stifle other voices than their own. --Tenebrae (talk) 14:42, 11 December 2007 (UTC)


 * In response to John254, if you're calling it canvassing, then yes, you are implicitly saying the wording is not neutral. Because if it's neutral, it's not canvassing.


 * "It is suspected" is WP:WEASEL passive voice. Who exactly suspects? And what evidence is that in any case? If I say, "It is suspected that so-and-so is a crazy obsessive," that's not evidence. Anybody can say anything "is suspected." Cheese and crackers.... --Tenebrae (talk) 01:15, 12 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I can't make a better case for my neutrality than the quote John254 himself gives. I would also point out that I sent that friendly notice to some of the most active and longstanding editors in WikiProject Comics. Who else would one ask to give a comment?


 * I also need to ask: John254, have you actually seen Skyelarke's version of the page? Please read User:Skyelarke/Buscema draft, with all its uncited POV, decorative images, hagiography, false citations (see John Buscema page history, 11 June 2007), etc. If you really, genuinely believe that that's a proper and appropriate Wikipedia article worthy of such vociferous defense, than God bless you. --Tenebrae (talk) 02:41, 12 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed, per Skyelarke's evidence and my evidence. John254 04:04, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * That seems quite a bit overbroad.... Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:45, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The breadth of the remedy is necessary to prevent further disruptive canvassing concerning this article. John254 05:03, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * In response to this comment by Tenebrae, I note that it is rather improper to accuse other editors of making statements that are "false and an attempt to mislead" while simultaneously making factually incorrect representations of the statements in dispute: Tenebrae states that "For Skyelarke or his friend John254 to say... [that these notices] are not neutrally worded is false and an attempt to mislead." .  However, my evidence does not actually discuss the wording of the notices at all, but rather the selection of editors who received them, stating in relevant part that "It is suspected that Tenebrae chose the editors to contact based on the belief that they would favor his version of the article.". I will support this claim with additional evidence shortly. John254 01:08, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I have added further evidence to support the claim that Tenebrae selected the editors to receive the canvassing notices in a non-neutral manner. Despite Tenebrae's assertion that "if you're calling it canvassing, then yes, you are implicitly saying the wording is not neutral." , notices with facially neutral wording can constitute not only canvassing, but even disruptive canvassing, entirely as a result of a non-neutral selection of the recipients.  It is ironic, moreover, that Tenebrae has characterized me as "Skyelarke['s]... friend John254"  when I do not recall having any interaction with Skyelarke prior to his filing of this request for arbitration, but when my evidence is beginning to suggest that Tenebrae contacted a few of his friends for assistance with the content dispute on John Buscema. John254 02:09, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * With regard to Tenebrae's critique of the version of John Buscema favored by Skyelarke, I note that the arbitration process does not result in a ruling on the merits of article content, but on the propriety of editors' behavior. The Arbitration Committee considers article content only indirectly, if it is alleged that a user's content edits have significantly violated Wikipedia's fundamental policies.  For instance, the Committee might issue a finding that an editor has engaged in blatant WP:NPOV violations, or obvious original research. John254 03:49, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Tenebrae cautioned
3) Tenebrae is cautioned to refrain from further violations of the no personal attacks policy.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Saying something doesn't make it so. I can't even imagine how I've personally attacked anyone. Is it an "attack" to mention that you are excusing your own behavior under the "bureaucracy" guideline and yet using bureaucracy to the point of minutiae? Or perhaps the sheer quantity and vehemence of your postings, which together take on an extremely personal tone. --Tenebrae (talk) 04:11, 14 December 2007 (UTC)


 * And again, John254, as soon as Skyelarke abides by the Evidence word-limit, I can respond to your and his tag-teaming. I don't want to give a 1,900-word response to match his 1,900-word accusations, and I'm sure the arbitrators don't want anything that long from anyone. But John, do you think it's fair or ethical for one person to have twice as much room to accuse as another has to defend? Do you really, genuinely believe it's OK for one person to fight with two hands and the other person to defend himself with just one? --Tenebrae (talk) 04:24, 14 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed, per the "Tenebrae has made personal attacks" finding. John254 03:45, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * To clarify, this remedy is justified by Tenebrae's personal attacks against Skyelarke -- see    . John254 04:18, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Phoenix741 cautioned
3) Phoenix741 is cautioned to refrain from further violations of the no personal attacks policy.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed, per the "Phoenix741 has made personal attacks" finding. John254 03:47, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I ask again, when did this even come close to being about me? Phoenix741 (Talk Page)  03:50, 14 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Oppose. This would be an unnecessarily punitive action for a single instance of excessive rhetoric. --GentlemanGhost (talk) 03:23, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Tenebrae banned for 30 days
5) Tenebrae's editing privileges are suspended for a period of 30 days.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed, per the "Tenebrae has engaged in disruptive canvassing" finding, the "Tenebrae has an extensive history of derogatory characterizations of editors with whom he is in disputes" finding, and the "Tenebrae has an extensive history of disruptive canvassing" finding, as Tenebrae's behavior, some of it quite recent, has been unacceptable. John254 07:20, 16 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Oppose: This seems more drastic than blocking him from said article. Phoenix741 (Talk Page)  23:26, 18 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Oppose: Ridiculously draconian. --GentlemanGhost (talk) 00:56, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Skyelarke restricted from editing John Buscema
6) That's all I personally think is necessary. I've never been out to ban him, block him, restrict him from Wikipedia or anything else. But I believe from the evidence, including his own statements as I note on the Evidence page, that he wants ownership of the article and sees it as his personal-essay fan page.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposal by Tenebrae (talk) 23:18, 18 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

RFC
7) If all parties agree to respect principles 1-4 of the ArbCom decision, I'd be willing to participate in (without pushing too hard in any direction - more just asking questions and providing information) and abide by an RFC consensus if Jc37 be asked to initiate and moderate the exercise.  This editor seems to me to have a level of maturity, fair-mindedness, and experience that would give me some hope of the exercise having genuine consensus mindedness. (Kindly keep canvassing neutral and moderate).

I'd also suggest that the request be made at the following places:

Request for comment on articles

Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/Notice Board

Request for comment- Biographies

WikiProject_Biography/Arts_and_entertainment/Announcements

--Skyelarke (talk) 15:34, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Feedback on this proposal is kindly requested.

--Skyelarke (talk) 19:44, 7 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * I was just asked about this. I would be happy to help, if it's wanted. Note that (as I noted on Skyelarke's talk page here) I really haven't been following this, so I'll have to do some reading to "catch-up". Which is fine, but I thought you should be aware. And since I'm asked to play a neutral role (and due to my current lack of insight/knowledge as to what's going on), I'm also (except for this note) going to stay away from this RfAr, unless otherwise requested. That said, please kindly let me know how I may further help, if you wish. - jc37 10:43, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Template
8) {text of proposed remedy}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
9) {text of proposed remedy}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
2) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
3) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
4) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
5) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Analysis of evidence
Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis

Template

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

General discussion

 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * The parties are cordially reminded that findings of fact are a necessary prerequisite for remedies. ;-) Kirill 04:21, 12 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties: Skyelarke
 * To me, this dispute is not what I think would be a typical content dispute where two sides are advocating diverging content-based viewpoints on a specific topic. The lion's share of my edits consist in contributing new text (properly researched and referenced) and is tantamount to starting a new article (the previous version being slightly more than a stub)- hence creation-oriented.  The lion's share of TB's edits are modifications (many of which are deletions/reversions) in reaction to my edits.  So the two competing versions are virtually identical in content, mine simply having additonal data.


 * Moreover, I have gathered that TB's overall editing impetus is not content-based - he doesn't seem to be contesting the inherent correctness of the information he is reverting (and doesn't demonstrate more than a basic knowledge of or focus on the topic per se) - It seems essentially based on general, subjective notions of content formatting related to his specific sub-group of collaborators within the Comic Book Project. My contention is that the extreme, dogmatic enforcing of those prerogatives go against Wikipedia policies (and seem quite antithetical to featured article criteria.)


 * This was a point I'd been wanting to discuss - I'd been referring to FA's from the biography portal because there are 402 of them - whereas the Comic Strip project only have 11 FA's and none are cartoonist biographies (which is a shame, because there's a lot of interesting possibilities there) and only 3 created in the past year - so to what point does this article (which has been tagged by 3 projects) have to refer to a project that's comparitively underdevelopped (in terms of FA criteria) in regards to biographical material. I've nothing against the Comic Strip project per se - there's plenty of good editors there - but is there a way of working with multi-lateral project groups?
 * --Skyelarke (talk) 01:20, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


 * PS- The article has 6 main sections - the revision process from February to June 2007, consisted in myself adding various referenced material one section at a time followed by a discussion period on the talk page for each section.


 * PPS - The problem with the NPOV issue in the RfC is that I feel that it was raised prematurely - this was in the middle of an article revision process - I don't advocate any version proposed in that RfC - I did want to propose to wait until all the references have been added (and allow me to add mine without them being deleted)and then let's get feedback on comparative versions - but I just felt that the situation was too antagonistic and biased for the proposition to be considered --Skyelarke (talk) 18:23, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * PPS added --Skyelarke (talk) 15:17, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

For comments below see -


 * Comment by parties: Tenebrae


 * I'm left speechless by sheer baldness of Skyelarke's false statement that "he [Tenebrae] doesn't seem to be contesting the inherent correctness of the information." Not only did I, but so did several other editors at Talk:John Buscema.


 * Talk:John Buscema is filled with specific listings of Skyelarke's incorrect and POV information, poorly sourced or unsourced, and, as I specify there, sometimes with false citations (See 11 June 2007 edit-summaries 16:40, 16:27 and 16:16, for example, on History page here). Skyelarke's statements above are demonstrably untrue. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:55, 12 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * In answer to Skyelarke's question, "Is there a way of working with multi-lateral project groups?"


 * The answer is yes, feel free to invite anyone to participate. WikiProject Comics doesn't "own" the article any more than individual editors do. In fact, in order to solicit broader involvement, this article's talk page was tagged with the WikiProject Biography banner at the same time it was tagged with the WikiProject Comics banner. But, by no means does this limit the right to edit the article to these two projects. This is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, after all. :) --GentlemanGhost (talk) 00:39, 19 December 2007 (UTC)