Case Opened on 22:40, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Case Closed on 18:07, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Watchlist all case pages: 1, 2, 3, 4

Please do not edit this page directly unless you wish to become a participant in this case. Only add a statement here after the case has begun if you are named as a party; otherwise, your statement may be placed on the talk page, and will be read in full. Evidence, no matter who can provide it, is very welcome at /Evidence. Evidence is more useful than comments.

Arbitrators, the parties, and other editors may suggest proposed principles, findings, and remedies at /Workshop. That page may also be used for general comments on the evidence. Arbitrators will then vote on a final decision in the case at /Proposed decision.

Once the case is closed, editors may add to the #Log of blocks and bans as needed, but it should not be edited otherwise. Please raise any questions at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Requests for clarification, and report violations of remedies at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement.

Initiated by User:Skyelarke at 05:40, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Involved parties

Tenebrae (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Skyelarke (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
John Buscema (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Requests for comment

Talk:John Buscema#Request for Comment: NPOV and images - RfC begun Feb. 26, 2007, running through March 9, 2007

The page John Buscema was protected by admin Nishkid64 on 17:43, 12 June 2007

A request for mediation begun July 20th -[1]

was closed on November 12th due to mediator's unavailibility and User Tenebrae request to go to arbitration. [2]

Statement by Skyelarke

In December 2006, I began to participate in an article revision process with user Tenebrae on the [3] article. Having contributed the large majority of the article text up to that point but having neglected to include footnote references of my sources, I proposed to do so in mid-December - a process that user Tenebrae agreed to.

From practically the beginning I was faced with disruptive editing and uncivil behavior on the other party's part until I came to the conclusion the other party's behavior amounted to establishing ownership of said article. This was achieved basically through regular and systematic partial reversions and intimidating, disparaging, and uncivil remarks to other editors. I tried to proceed by encouraging proper editing protocol and etiquette, but by the time I had finished adding the footnotes at the beginning of June 2007, a dispute erupted and efforts to resolve that dispute have proven unsuccessful.

Sample proofs and examples

As an overall example of user Tenebrae's widespread peremptory, unsubstantiated removal of good-faith, credibly-referenced contributions compare the final updated version I presented on June 3-

[4]

with the current version reverted to by Tenebrae prior to requesting edit protection [5]

the June 3rd version has 44 numbered footnotes whereas the current version has only 22. Hence, at least half of the footnoted passages, 22 in all, have been removed. This is not counting various other non-referenced passages.

Moreover, of the 15 images contained in the June 3rd, version, 6 have been removed in the current version.

The only explanation given for 19 of the referenced passages removed was the following -

[6]

and

18:12, 7 June 2007 Tenebrae (rv to Terpsichoreus 00:59, 17 May 2007 for Skylarke's blatant, days-long series of fancruft edits, footnote misformatting, and over-illustration in DIRECT CONTRADICTION to settled RfC matters.)

Various examples of disruptive editing behavior regularly practiced by user Tenebrae since December 2006.

Basically, there are four different types:

1- Misuse and improper implementation and application of a RfC -

a- Premature implemenatation of RfC

[7]

It was implemented 5 hours after I had made mention of an initial disagreement, without any prior discussion.

b- Non-neutral canvassing of favored collaborators

[8]

c- Vote-Stacking and disregard of consensus process

[9]

The above statement to give an indication that the Rfc consisted mainly in the aforementioned 9 editors contributing perfunctory statements that had an uncommon level of agreement with user Tenebrae's statements and little in ways of explanations or compromise and consensus-minded discussion.

d- Using disputed RfC results as a pretext to reject edits that were clearly outside the boundaries and contents of said RfC

The version established after RfC process ended on March7, only had 4 referenced passages - [10]

This kind of repeated statement -

[11]

practically implies that the edits contributed after the RfC are somehow under restrictions of said RfC even though the were not present or discussed at the time of the RfC.

2- Improper editing protocol and disruptive editing behavior

a- Misleading, fallacious, and deceptive editing descriptions.

[12]

b- Making false policy claims to justify reversions.

[13]

3- Peremptory and antagonistic misuse of administrative procedures.

a- An inflammatory complaint made to the administrator's notice board -

April 27 -' Several editors, and heaven knows you can see them at Talk:John Buscema, have tried to work with a fanatic fan, User:Skyelarke, who is a single-purpose account... He has continually added POV and irrelevant, fan-page trivia,...' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive84

b- Misleading page protection request -

June 12 - Page Protection Request filed by user Tenebrae is characterized as 'Severe, longstanding edit war...protection is requested to stop edit war...' when actual reciprocal reversions only began on June 11, remaining under the 3rr barrier.

4- Incivility and personal attacks (designed to intimidate and discredit other editors.)

[14]

[15]

[16]

Final note

To indicate that user Tenebrae's behavior goes beyond a personal dispute with myself and extends to several editors' contributions from that article, I'd like to point out that when user Tenebrae reverted the article to the May 17th version on June 12th, the following editors' contributions were effectively removed-

18:12, 11 June 2007 Mmaillot (Exteranl links)

17:41, 10 June 2007 Tman930 (→References)

06:55, 7 June 2007 66.137.180.95 (→1970s)

01:15, 5 June 2007 71.215.128.73 (→1980s - Page shown is from Fantastic Four #306, not the Avengers)

20:36, 26 May 2007 Steven J. Anderson (Repairing link to disambiguation page - You can help!)

00:55, 22 May 2007 GentlemanGhost (→1970s - Missing space)

--Skyelarke (talk) 05:40, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Tenebrae

Before I can address all this, I do simply need to make the Arbitration Committee aware that for several days I've asked on the Evidence page and elsewhere that Skyelarke reduce his initially 2,750-word statement, nearly three times that of the proscribed 1,000-word limit. The Evidence page says in an opening box at the top of the page that anything over that "will be refactored or removed entirely." Skyelarke after some days reduced it to 1,900, still nearly twice the limit.

I'm not quite sure what else I can do at this point if another party continues to knowingly flout the letter and spirit of arbitration. Something similar happened during mediation as well. I would just ask the Committee to ask Skyelarke to adhere to the same rules as all of us. Thank you for any help. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:47, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by John254

Tenebrae has engaged in disruptive canvassing to support his position in this content dispute -- see [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27], in which he notifies selected editors of the article RFC on their talk pages. It is suspected that Tenebrae chose the editors to contact based on the belief that they would favor his version of the article. This request for arbitration appears to present serious user conduct issues. John254 13:08, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Preliminary decisions

Arbitrators' opinions on hearing this matter (4/0/0/0)

Accept to examine behavior of all parties. Kirill 02:20, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Accept, attempts at dispute resolution have not worked. FloNight ♥♥♥ 17:04, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Accept. James F. (talk) 19:31, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Accept. Mackensen (talk) 23:39, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary injunction (none)

Final decision

All numbering based on /Proposed decision (vote counts and comments are there as well)

Principles

Editorial process

1) 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.