Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/John Buscema

Response to John254

Seeing as how I am being referenced here I think I should make some sort of comment on this matter. Although I do not recognize all of those names that have been provided, the ones I do know are part of the Comic's Wikiproject. Now, since this was a comics article I would think that talking to other people who are part of the wikiproject would be a good idea, cause they know how articles of this type generally need to be written. Also, I did see comments on both edits regarding what needed to be fixed. Plus, I KNOW that there have been past issues where Tenebrae and I have butted heads on other topics, so why would he ask me to do something IF there was a chance that I would say that the other version was better. I am saying this again because this is the point I am trying to stress, 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. I really don't see why it needed to go this far, the article that was created due to the RfC was very nice looking, and I think it may of even been good for a GA status.Addition:I am not quite sure if this is the right place ot put my comment, if it is not, I will be happy to move it around to keep everything right. Phoenix₇₄₁(Talk Page) 01:41, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Doczilla

Now and in previous RfC, Tenebrae has properly notified active WikiProject Comics members, people whom T. knows have plenty of experience editing comics related pages, people T. can count on to know what they're doing, not people T. can count on to agree with him/her. As a matter of fact, Tenebrae knows from past experience that when I get asked to comment on people's disputes, I will criticize both sides. I strive to find the best of what each contributor has put in, to point out flaws in what each has said, and to point out where each could have reacted better to have kept the problems from growing. I'm not saying I try to straddle any fences, though. If one side appears to be more correct than the other, I need to say so. There have been times when, for example, Tenebrae and Asgardian got into disputes and they both either directly asked me to weigh in or suggested to others that they solicit my input, even though neither one knows in advance which of them I'll agree with most.

Notification to people who (1) know the article in question or (2) are experienced with our policies, guidelines, and norms as they relate to comics articles is appropriate. Whether Tenebrae did or did not make the best choices as to whom he/she should notify, the other party does not appear to have SHOWN GOOD FAITH and has instead either assumed the worst or -- and I hope this is not the case -- seized upon that as an opportunity to sidetrack this entire discussion and avoid discussing the actual issues of the article in question.

So it's notification if you like whomever the other person notified but canvassing if you don't? That's not fair. If you think Tenebrae notified the wrong people, then go notify others yourself.

Today, I do not remotely care what happens to the article in question. If you choose to ignore guidelines that say we need to keep the number of images down because image galleries are not consistent with the intent of fair use, I do not care. Not today. I have real life to deal with. I am responding only because somebody quoted me on the evidence page [1] as what appears to be (I make no actual assumptions about anyone's intent in this) a way of attacking someone else rather than proceeding to discuss the issues. Now . . . discuss the issues already. Doczilla (talk) 10:25, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

To ban or not to ban

There's been an incident following a recently closed Arb case :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement#User:Tenebrae

The party received a warning, but for future considerations, would such an incident be subject to temporary banning under Remedy 3?

Disruptive editing 3) Any uninvolved administrator may ban Skyelarke or Tenebrae from editing John Buscema or any related article or page for a reasonable period of time, either before or after three months have expired, if either engages in any form of disruptive editing, edit-warring, or editing against an established consensus.

--Skyelarke (talk) 16:07, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

An uninvolved administrator may ban either participant in the case from any article or page related to John Buscema for the reasons stated. The words "or page" were added to the remedy to make it clear that talk pages are included. Talk pages are for discussion, even for expressing disagreement with other editors, so banning someone from a talkpage normally should not be necessary, but if there is disruption from either party it can be done in the discretion of the administrator handling arbitration enforcement. I will add that I am very, very disappointed to see the two of you sniping at each other again so soon after the case was resolved. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:13, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanky for reply, Newyorkbrad - Hopefully, it's an isolated impulsive reaction following case closure - things should hopefully cool down once parties have taken the time to review and integrate the arbcom case decision a little better.

Thanks also, for your double-duty efforts (clerk and arbitrator) on the case, and best of luck with your new arbitration appointment.

Cheers,

--Skyelarke (talk) 16:32, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Admin actions don't generally start with the most severe remedy, and blocks don't normally start at the longest length. It's normally the other way around; the exceptions are things like vandal only accounts. In this case there was also the issue of what the arb case applied to. — Rlevse • Talk • 17:16, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Request for clarification : Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/John_Buscema

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:

• User:Scott Free
• User:Tenebrae

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ATenebrae&diff=228478711&oldid=228228599

Statement by Scott Free

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/John_Buscema

I have a question concerning a statement by Tenebrae -

...the version largely written by Scott Free's former identity, Skyelarke, which was disallowed by both RfC consensus and a lengthy Arbitration.'

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AJohn_Buscema&diff=226555068&oldid=215860249

Extra info - A similar statement was made here - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AJohn_Buscema&diff=228308285&oldid=228307747

My question would be is the statement correct? Does the Arbitration ruling state that content contained in previous versions are not allowed to be integrated into the current article? I'm not clear about the consensus aspect, but my understanding is that of the closing arbitrator -

'(Referring to 'Consensus can change') ...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)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_arbitration%2FJohn_Buscema%2FWorkshop&diff=181873872&oldid=181781354

I ask this because my understanding of the situation is that discussion on content had been interrupted (with about 30 or so referenced passages, having arrived after the RfC in question, left more or less incompletly discussed) due to conduct and civility issues that required arbitration. Following the Arbitration, which issued a decision aimed at resolving the dispute, in theory discussion could continue, addressing the unresolved content questions. So I guess my second question would be: Can I make edits to the article (within reason) that aim at reintegrating some or all of the 30 or so unresolved referenced passages?

Right now, I feel that if I should make edits to the article in that spirit, judging by the statement (which has been made in various forms several times), I would get a reply to the effect of 'the content being presented has been disallowed by RfC and an Arbitration ruling'.

In good faith,

--Scott Free (talk) 21:43, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Regarding respecting post-arb consensus - That's also a question I have - What if no clear consensus emerges from the limbo the article was in? I did do a RfC to try and address this, but there was little in terms of comments on the specific issue of the previous disputed (and I say largely unresolved) content - the RfC ended up being pretty inconclusive aside from certain generalities about image use.

--Scott Free (talk) 11:13, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Question to GRBerry - Just to clarify -had you or have you read Tenebrae's first statement in the Arb Enforce request? (Which is the same as the diff provided here above) I ask because your closing statement seemed to indicate that you might not have. (That was partially a mistake on my part, as it wasn't included in the green area of the diff, it was just above it.) (Although this clarification request isn't a direct reaction to your admin action - the statement is fairly typical of the editor and I was planning on making a clarification request on this sooner or later.)

--Scott Free (talk) 21:09, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Response to Sam Blacketer - I can see how reverting a paragraph wholesale would be innapropriate - I was thinking of taking the 30 or so passages individually and reintegrating them into the current version, rewording as required (they are all fairly short sentence fragments, I think, spread out fairly evenly throughout the entire article) - either one at a time or one section at a time. The reference sources are the same as the ones already used in the article. However, content-wise, it would still be the same content that Tenebrae is, I gather, strongly opposed to and will most likely delete most of them. Most likely, I would probably end up making a request for comment, to get additional feedback. Would this be acceptable?

I think in three cases, Tenebrae had removed the reference tag and kept the text, stating that references weren't necessary for them - Post-arb, another editor removed the phrases for reason of lack of reference. In those cases, I would restore the 3 phrases and include the corresponding previously deleted reference tags.

Another question would be : Would it be acceptable for me to submit this article to a Peer Review process?

--Scott Free (talk) 12:25, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Tenebrae

Anyone can go on the John Buscema page and see Scott Free's disruptiveness even when editors besides myself try to dissuade him from continuing to promote his highly POV, often non-MOS, hagiographic fan page with over a dozen often decorative images. He was barred from editing the page for three months, and his obsessiveness over the page got him another month tacked on.

Please: Go read the lengthy Arbitration log, and the months of discussion that went on before and, now, afterward. --Tenebrae (talk) 03:10, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Response to jpgordon

I believe I've tried, having made only non-controversial and minor edits and not having touched the article otherwise.

It might be helpful to read these two new related, closed discussions on the Admin Noticeboard, of which I've only now become aware, in which other editors and admins have addressed Scott Free's continuing disruptions and obsessive behavior: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement#John Buscema and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement#Addenda to John Buscema. --Tenebrae (talk) 13:37, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Statement by GRBerry

There was a recent WP:AE thread posted by Scott Free, which I closed after 5 days had gone by. It was clear to me that it did not merit administrative action, and no other reviewer had suggested that use of tools was appropriate. During that thread it was discovered that the external link was to a out of date mirror of our article, and it looked due to lack of further dispute over the link like that would lead to consensus about it. This thread is now archived here. A followup thread, attended to by Shell Kinney, is still on WP:AE but will archive to archive 24 shortly. An even earlier related thread is here. No other WP:AE activity I'm aware of is relevant. GRBerry 03:18, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussion

The remedies in the case said nothing whatsoever about the content of the article; rather, they require that after your topic ban expired, both of you "respect consensus developed in the interim concerning the basic structure of the article and the nature of the material that should be included". Does your material respect the consensus that developed? --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 04:06, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

• The terms of the arbitration case are that you have to respect the basic structure, so simply restoring the same paragraphs that were previously being objected to would not be respecting the structure but reverting to the previous structure. The external link to Nationmaster is clearly inappropriate. If you are adding reliable source references to what it already in the article, or making additions to explain existing material, then that is quite acceptable. Meanwhile I hope other editors will continue to assume good faith on your contributions. Sam Blacketer (talk) 10:02, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Request for clarification: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/John Buscema

Involved users

• Scott Free (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), initiator.
• Tenebrae (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Evidence and links

• User talk:Tenebrae#FYI 4.

Statement by Scott Free

Having been banned from editing said article, while maintaining the freedom to edit the article's talk page - are there any arbcom restrictions that prevent me from doing archive maintenance on said talk page? My reasons for wanting to do so are:

There was a lot of old discussion threads starting to accumulate - I archived them (respecting the pre-existing, consensused archiving structure), keeping the most recent thread- I don't see the problem. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AJohn_Buscema&diff=237152156&oldid=236990123

It was alledged that I was doing so, I gather, in bad faith - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Rlevse#John_Buscema

As explained above, that wasn't my intention, and in fact, no proof of such allegations were provided. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Rlevse#No_one.2C_banned_or_otherwise.2C_should_be_removing_legit_talk_page_edits

I was blocked for this, although the administrator's interpretation that I removed legit talk page edits is, I believe, incorrect. I bring this to Arbcom clarification because I think that this is more a question of arbcom ruling interpretation than one of conduct issues to the extent that I have been able to demonstrate that my archiving edits were done with reasonable respect to existing consensus and archiving guidelines with a willingness to civilly discuss any differences of opinion on the matter.

--Scott Free (talk) 00:40, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

PS - Here's the page previous to my archiving - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:John_Buscema&oldid=231305105

Here's how I archived it - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:John_Buscema&oldid=236917151

--Scott Free (talk) 00:50, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

It may seem lame to people constantly involved in controversial socio-political disputes with heavy policy violations - However, I do believe the question is genuine - there's some uncertainty as to the question of where archiving stands in the parties' rights to edit the talk page. It would take just as much time to answer the question than to explain why one doesn't feel inclined to. I.E. it's not that the question can't be worked out, it's just that one party genuinely feels that archiving isn't allowed according to the arbitration decision.

In general, part of the problem is that there's a lack of understanding of the arbitration process and certain guidelines on both sides - I don't feel that strongly about archiving per se - asking someone else to do it is probably impractical as I think the situation has scared everyone away and there are no active editors on the article beside the two parties.

In general if a party feels that a request is beneath their dignity, that's cool by me, just don't respond to it - let the people who have a sincere motivation to help out with this question address it, no rush.

--Scott Free (talk) 01:43, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Response to Rlevse - Ironically, I thought that the manner in which Tenebrae and JGreb's obected to my archiving was a relative improvement over previous reactions. I agree with your take on the archiving situation but disagree with the rest. A few points -

a- I expressed my disagreement with Elonka's intervention, but didn't think much of it at the time.

b- When I requested that she not close a subsequent arb enforce req, I eventually noticed a certain 'snippiness' among the other admins who closed the following reqs., but didn't make much of it.

c- When I came across this - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Elonka

I realized that I wasn't the only one with objections to certain methods - i.e. though the situations are different, I had noticed similar attitudes as expressed by editors such as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Elonka#Comments_by_Mathsci and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Elonka#Outside_view_by_MastCell - with some 30 odd editors agreeing with these statements, I don't think my own complaints were necessarily groundless.

d- I also noticed that the same admins. who closed my reqs. displayed noticeably strong support for Elonka. I AGF, but will say that there can conceivably be an appearance of that situation having a negative influence on this case.

e- Ergo, if the experimental 'zero telorance, heavy enforcement' policy championed by Elonka is being used on this case, I feel that this is the wrong approach. I think that something like the opposite approach would be more effective i.e. de-dramatize, with a calm, patient, civil response to enforce and clarification reqs with suitable explanations.

PS - Damage control To Fassal, Gordon, NYBrad - re- lame ridiculous - I don't think that kind of response really helps the case. civility, civility,civility - decorum, decorum, decorum.

NYBrad - re: blocks because of edit-warring - no, no, no - the allegation is wrong - kindly provide evidence if you have those kind of statements to make.

PPS - I don't consider this me bickering with Tenebrae situation - JGreb's post-arb involvement, I don't consider to be from an uninvolved, neutral, objective adminstrator, and he has contested my edits as much as Tenebrae. I've pretty much given up on the situation - I.ve tried to negociate with the specific 'clique' - unsuccessfully - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Scott_Free&oldid=190564687

but basically what put the nail in the coffin are comments like this - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AJohn_Buscema&diff=203399620&oldid=203367899 - mainly the last few parts - it doesn't sound to bad, but in the context of the subject, they're major restrictions IMO, and read like a kind of anti- featured article manifesto - I can't deal with that, I just don't what to make of it. Basically, all I want is to continue popping in from time to time with minor edits without people freaking out.

--Scott Free (talk) 23:40, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Tenebrae

First, my thanks to Rlevse for notifying me; I've had a close death in my family, haven't logged on in awhile, and would not have thought to visit this page on my first foray back. Thank you.

In terms of any dispute with Scott Free: I'd simply notified the Arb committee of a unilateral action involving his removal of contentious postings with which he was involved. Because of questionable past actions on that editor's part (the Nationmaster episode, for example, in which admin Emperor rebuked him), this gives an image of impropriety. A third-party arbitrator, mediator or Comics Project volunteer could easily have been asked to archive in a disinterested, trustworthy fashion.

Rather than engage in argument with Scott Free, I responsibly sought an objective opinion. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:46, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Clerk notes

•  Question: Would the Committee like this thread removed and archived, what with the overwhelmingly negative response to date?
  Standing by for direction, Anthøny ✉ 18:40, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
  • It needs to stay here long enough so the party who made the request has a chance to read the responses. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:22, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
• Archiving the talk page is allowed, but don't squabble over it. What the arbs are essentially saying is that if you two can't even get along regarding the talk page, there are serious problems here. You two have been at each other for at least a year now and if you can't resolve your differences very quickly, a complete ban for both of you from the article AND its talk page may be in order. — Rlevse • Talk • 16:54, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussion

• I would say 'this is lame'. Regardless of the intentions of anyone, prevention is better than cure. There's no bureaucracy in leaving a request at the bottom of the talk page asking for archiving old discussions. fayssal / Wiki me up® 01:57, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
• Lame, per FayssalF. Err on the side of non-annoyance. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 17:24, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
• Per FayssalF and Jpgordon. If the editors on this non-controversial article can't even agree about how to archive the talkpage without edit-warring and blocks, the situation has become ridiculous. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:41, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
• Best to move on past this as the other arbs say. FloNight♥♥♥ 17:46, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

---