Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/John Buscema

message: ::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)
thread_title:  Response to John254 

message: 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  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Statement by [[User:Doczilla|Doczilla]]

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: To ban or not to ban

message: 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)
thread_title:  Statement by [[User:Scott Free|Scott Free]] 

message: :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)
thread_title: Response to jpgordon

message: 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)
thread_title:  Statement by [[User:GRBerry|GRBerry]] 

message: ::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)
thread_title:  Arbitrator views and discussion 

message: ;Involved users
*, initiator.
*
;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)
thread_title:  Request for clarification: [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/John Buscema]] 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Statement by [[User:Scott Free|Scott Free]] 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Statement by [[User:Tenebrae|Tenebrae]] 

message: * 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)
thread_title:  Clerk notes 

message: *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)
thread_title:  Arbitrator views and discussion