Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/John Buscema

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)