Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/John Buscema/Evidence

Create your own section to provide evidence in, and do not edit anyone else's section. Keep your evidence to a maximum of 1000 words and 100 diffs. Evidence longer than this will be refactored or removed entirely.

Anyone, whether directly involved or not, may add evidence to this page. Create your own section and do not edit in anybody else's section. Please limit your main evidence to a maximum 1000 words and 100 diffs and keep responses to other evidence as short as possible. A short, concise presentation will be more effective; posting evidence longer than 1000 words will not help you make your point. Over-long evidence that is not exceptionally easy to understand (like tables) will be trimmed to size or, in extreme cases, simply removed by the Clerks without warning - this could result in your important points being lost, so don't let it happen. Stay focused on the issues raised in the initial statements and on diffs which illustrate relevant behavior.

It is extremely important that you use the prescribed format. Submitted evidence should include a link to the actual page diff in question, or to a short page section; links to the page itself are insufficient. Never link to a page history, an editor's contributions, or a log for all actions of an editor (as those will have changed by the time people click on your links), although a link to a log for a specific article or a specific block log can be useful. Please make sure any page section links are permanent. See simple diff and link guide.

This page is not for general discussion - for that, see the talk page. If you think another editor's evidence is a misrepresentation of the facts, cite the evidence and explain how it is incorrect within your own section. Please do not try to re-factor the page or remove evidence presented by others. If something is put in the wrong place, leave it for the Arbitrators or Clerks to move.

Arbitrators may analyze evidence and other assertions at /Workshop. /Workshop provides for comment by parties and others as well as Arbitrators. After arriving at proposed principles, findings of fact or remedies, Arbitrators vote at /Proposed decision. Only Arbitrators may edit /Proposed decision.

Tenebrae (TB) misused a RFC

a- Following an initial expression of disagreement on my part concerning the article's revision process, there was no response or attempts to discuss - instead, a RfC was implemented by TB, 5 hours after I had added a follow-up message explaining my recent edits. (In retrospect, not the most diplomatic way of presenting the problem - I wasn't really that familiar with Wiki policies and guidelines until the beginning of March).

[1]

b- Non-neutral canvassing

The following message - [2]

was sent to 11 editors.

8 of the 9 participants in the RfC had received said message:

Brian Boru is awesome

Phoenix741

J Greb

Doczilla

Mrph

Pepso

Bloodpack

Basique

The remaining one, CovenantD, appears to be a regular collaborator of TB's (TB says that he meant to send him the RfC notice) - As per : [3]

None had participated in the article previously.

c- 'Vote-stacking' and disregard of consensus process

For the NPOV issues, please see Workshop General Discussion A -for the image question, the responses appeared perfunctory and with a curiously high level of agreement with TB's contentions. i.e.:

Do we need 13 images? Brian Boru is awesome

There are alot of pictures in here, an aritcle about a artists should have only a few pieces of his work, and even then it should be his most well knowen stuff. The amount of images here does take away from the article and they should be removed, even from Tenebrae's version, it seems alittle congested. Phoenix741

I also agree with the sentiment about the images. I could see 5 or 6, tops, one per section of his career, but fewer would be better. J Greb

The number of images is excessive. Seriously consider Wikipedia guidelines for image usage. Doczilla

I can see why there are so many illustrations - Buscema's career is long and varied - but there are too many and we're never going to illustrate every style/aspect, so pruning them back a little would seem sensible and closer to the spirit of the guidelines. Mrph

I think just five images would be sufficient to show what kind of artist the article is covering. No need to publish an entire portfolio. Pepso

We dont need to place every image in each of his works. To resolve this issue, we only need to select some images of his works that made significant impact/turning point in his career as a comicbook artist. And when I say the "most", that includes either his first published work, his best selling work, his work with his longest stint, his last work before he died. The rest, personally, are just a spam of images. User:Bloodpack

As for the pics, I hope you're listening to what every other editor so far has expressed about having too many. CovenantD

Skyelarke you need to step back for a while, we'll go over the article and make sure it's encyclopedic. You did have way more images here than were needed. And there was a bit of NPOV. A request for comment means you walk away from the article and the Project takes over. If you want to keep busy in the meantime, many of the articles in Category:Comics articles needing cleanup are long overdue for some love. Basique

The above culled from [4]

For the above comments, (besides what appears to be 'vote-stacking'), I contend that:

1- To my knowledge, comparable Wikipedia articles (in the Biography project for example, which the article is a part of) that contain more than 12 images (there were 13 images in the disputed version) are prevalent enough for the amount to be considered acceptable community practice. Moreover there aren't any policies that specifically restrict the number of images, therefore it is improper to hold a RfC in order to impose such limits so arbitrarily, which is what the RfC amounted to i.e TB's 9 image version was maintained without modification.

2- There was practically no mention of specific images, nor any specific explanations given as to which images are superfluous and why, very little reference to policy or guidelines, very little discussion.

3- My efforts to pursue discussing the question were subsequently ignored. [5]

The following message by TB would seem to confirm his agreement with the alleged 'vote stacking' process and reinforces the ignoring of my objections and failure to discuss the points I had raised. [6]

Between March 2 and March 5, a baffling, impromptu exercise to make edits to the article during the RfC, began - [7]

Here are some sample edits logs- (all participants included)

04:58, 5 March 2007 Tenebrae (→1950s - del imaged of something not referred to it text, and in any case, this article has a ton of images already.)

05:36, 4 March 2007 J Greb (Change to an appropriate infobox)

13:25, 2 March 2007 Phoenix741 (Time for the mass re-edit, woot)

Digression - The version TB advocated [8] contained an editing mistake that had removed an entire section and most of another (the 60's section, and part of the 50's). It was an accident, but the fact that this incomplete version was unanimously accepted without anyone noticing the problem, I find raises doubts about the neutrality of the RfC.

I tried to correct this during the 'mass re-edit' period. The subsequent message by TB, would seem to confirm his advocating of the biased 'mass re-edit' exercise and my exclusion from it (and his participation in it). The reversion he is referring to was my effort to reintegrate the missing sections into his version. [9]

d- TB made inflammatory remarks - [10]

e- The RfC was vague and inconclusive -

As far as I can tell - the RfC ended in a confused manner with no specific statements on what was agreed upon whatsoever -[11]

f- My attempts to discuss were largely ignored -[12]

g- The version established after RfC process ended on March 7, only had 4 referenced passages - [13]

These kinds of repeated statements -

[14] [15] [16]

seems to give an exaggerated scope of power to the RfC. Moreover, despite what I consider to be very unclear consensus gathering, TB’s statements seem to assume that anything mentioned by himself and his colleagues during the RfC is considered binding consensus.

h- Examples of 'tag teaming' by an aforementioned editor

1- J Greb defends TB's assertion that cited open-ended guideline justifies peremptory reversion. [17]

2-J Greb (although presenting certain discussion) defends TB's improper arbitrary limiting of amount of images initiated in RfC. [18]

i- Dogmatic policy statement in RfC - (Line 212)[19])

TB misused other Wikipedia procedures

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

[20]

(There had been discussion with two other editors regarding the 'rejected' passage, so I had re-worded it taking into consideration the objections - I agreed that this reformulation was still inappropriate, so I re-worded it again and integrated it into a more relevant section - TB reverted both edits). [21]

b- Seeing as TB was involved in an ongoing dispute on the Buscema article- I find the circumstances of his RfA filed on May 8, 2007, to be questionable.[22]

There was a canvassing controversy -[23]

Conduct concerns were raised - [24]

and there was questionable discussion regarding said RfA

[25] [26]

(Personal aside - I mention the RFA mainly because prior to that, TB was accepting about 75% of the footnoted passages at that point - so we had a chance of finishing the revision with 30-35 footnotes agreed upon and a calmer situation for RfM.) But after his return, he was more aggressive than previously).

c- This was followed by an unexplained 3-week departure from discussion (and another active RfC) 15 may - 7 June 2007

Below is an unanswered request [27]

d- At that point, I had mistakenly assumed that TB had dropped out of the dispute - I nonetheless left a discussion-friendly message on June 3rd, which was met by an antagonistic response by TB in an unexpected return on June 7th. [28]

Correction - the original TB deletions amounted to about 30% of the existing article.

e- Request for Mediation

1- The preceding situation became further complicated by what I contend to be two 'biting' of 'newbies' on TB's part (see points d & e of next section). The request for mediation was abruptly filed during this tense period (on June 11th) without prior discussion. [29]

[30]

2- I tried to see how willing TB was to discuss, but TB's replies seemed coercive and prosecuting in tone.

[31] [32] [33] [34]

e- Misleading page protection request - filed a day after RfM [35]

when actual reciprocal reversions only began on June 11, remaining under the 3RR barrier. (Why would TB make a page protection request that incriminates himself as an 'edit warrior'?) Stating that mediation process is ongoing, less than a day after RfM filing, seems premature.

TB used disruptive editing procedures

a- Example of repeated avoidance of basic content discussion - (simply reiterates dogmatic policy restrictions- including silent refusal to provide specific policy reference alluded to after repeated requests.)[36]

b- An example of misleading edit descriptions, misrepresenting guidelines to justify reversion, and disregarding substantiated objections. - [37]

Compare with actual edits - (without going into content, they seem noticeably more extensive than described) - [38]

c- Improper use of Non-notable policy - dogmatic footnoting imperatives - dogmatic list guideline citation - disparaging edit remarks - [39]

d- TB reverted a link added by User:Tman930 using misrepresented policy - (dogmatic rejection of commercial web sites)- [40]

Reverted it again after following explanation [41]

and my objection to policy misrepresentation - [42]

e- Reverted User:Mmaillot reference link

TB maintained reversion, despite my substantiated objections (contained in previous diff) and then replies with an accusation - [43]

f- 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- [44]

with the current version reverted to by Tenebrae prior to requesting edit protection [45]

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 (The images differ markedly from the previous RfC, having been revised in order to better comply with policy and guidelines), 6 have been removed in the current version.

The only explanation given for 19 of the referenced passages removed was the following - [46]

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.)

When TB reverted 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)

TB - incivility

Many different types can be found in previous sections -

The following in response to an arbitration case preparation sub-page I had created. [47]

These messages sent during an arbitration hearing. I contend that they contain thinly veiled personal attacks directed against me. (Note 'obsessive fan' epithet and I had recently contributed evidence to that arbitration case.)

[48] [49] [50] [51] [52]

PS - The term 'fancruft', which TB has repeatedly used, can be considered pejorative, as per:

[53]

TB violated Ownership policy

The following two messages give my reasons for the above contention -

[54]

[55]

Corroborating evidence

a- Tag-teaming with RfC participants

Doczilla J Greb Phoenix741 defend TB's position on Tb talk page [56] [57] [58]

Conclusion - I contend that all of the above consists in a systematic impulsive, unilateral, and inflammatory use of Wikipedia dispute resolution procedures that subvert the resolution process rather than facilitate it.

Response to evidence of Tenebrae

For Eppstein edit request see (after line 944) [59]

--Skyelarke (talk) 06:32, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Revised and corrected - --Skyelarke (talk) 23:38, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Additional revisions --Skyelarke (talk) 18:12, 7 December 2007 (UTC) & --Skyelarke (talk) 04:23, 9 December 2007 (UTC) --Skyelarke (talk) 15:19, 11 December 2007 (UTC) New streamlined 2000 word version, apologies for the length. --Skyelarke (talk) 00:10, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tenebrae has engaged in disruptive canvassing to support his position in the content dispute on John Buscema (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Tenebrae has engaged in disruptive canvassing to support his position in this content dispute -- see [60] [61] [62] [63] [64] [65] [66] [67] [68] [69] [70], 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. Indeed, all of the editors who received Tenebrae's canvassing notices and subsequently commented on the content dispute supported Tenebrae's position -- see Talk:John_Buscema#Request_for_Comment:_NPOV_and_images. Additionally, the involvement of at least one of the editors who Tenebrae canvassed in the content dispute has persisted for over eight months -- see [71]. John254 03:35, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why it is suspected that Tenebrae chose the editors to contact based on the belief that they would favor his version of the article

Tenebrae's canvassing notices concerning John Buscema stated, in relevant part, that

You're a regular and diligent contributor to WikiProject Comics, and so might be a knowledgeable and disinterested party who could add an informed opinion

[72] Contrary to the implication that the recipients of these notices were "disinterested part[ies]", however, at least three of the recipients of the notices had prior, favorable interactions with Tenebrae: see Bloodpack's comments [73] [74] [75], Doczilla's comments [76] [77] and [78], ChrisGriswold's comments [79] [80] [81] [82]. Many of the other editors who Tenebrae contacted may also have had prior favorable interactions; however, I haven't yet had the opportunity to review their lengthy edit histories. John254 02:29, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, Tenebrae's clearly disruptive canvassing as described in the following sections is probative as to Tenebrae's intentions in canvassing related to John Buscema. John254 07:24, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tenebrae has an extensive history of disruptive canvassing

Tenebrae even canvassed for his request for adminship -- see [83] [84] [85] [86] [87] [88] [89] [90] [91] [92] [93] [94] [95] [96] [97] [98] [99] [100] [101] [102] [103] [104] [105] [106]. Also, note his disruptive canvassing for Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Asgardian-Tenebrae as described in the next section. John254 06:59, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

In response to Skyelarke's introduction of evidence against him here, Tenebrae canvassed at least five users with personal attacks against Skyelarke -- see [107] [108] [109] [110] [111]. When I dared to critique Tenebrae's behavior, he responded by frivolously accusing me of being a "proxy" and a "a [[WP:SOCK|meat puppet]] for Skyelarke"[112], despite the fact that I am an established user with over 23000 edits during the course of 20 months. John254 13:01, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Initial Skyelarke version was POV personal essay

The first Skyelarke version was created 20 August 2006 as an unWikified personal essay without references [113] and containing large amounts of uncited, fannish POV ("Buscema carries his whirlwind momentum into the 80's"; "It is a credit to his talent that he manages to continue working in comics…," to give two of numerous examples), WP:NOR speculation ("compared to the top golden age artists of EC and DC, it perhaps lack the impact and flair of the best of those, possibly because he didn’t necessarily have a passion for the comic book medium per se"), etc.

I added a cleanup tag and made a small, initial attempt at cleanup [114] on 30 November 2006, and left a talk-page message here describing the reasons.

Skylarke's first signed message in response appeared 5 December 2006. There seemed little indication he would compromise on even straightforward fair-use image issues and basic graphic design ("Are there specific Wikipedia layout conventions and rules that state that having 24 illustrations aligned vertically to the right are contrary to layout conventions and rules?"  "all I suggest is to keep all of the illustrations"). I attempted to be welcoming ("Hi, Skyelarke, and welcome to Wikipedia! Your point is good, and…") and made suggestions incorporating his ideas for images and trying to give fair-use rationales for each. I continued to try to be welcoming ("Good to be working with you!" - 7 Dec. 2006).

Skyelarke has difficulty accepting WP:NOR and other policies

In response to statements 12 December 2006 ("a certain amount of 'original' research is necessary," "the article was actually submitted to the 500+ yahoo JB discussion group…for their input and it received very positive feedback"), I continued to try to be welcoming ("I can say with confidence that everyone in WikiProject Comics would welcome a John Buscema expert") and tried to explain, with links, about WP:NOR and writing neutrally for a general audience, not a fan audience. Despite some bumps, we seemed to be collaborating OK throughout January 2007.

Things then began to deteriorate. I wrote on Feb. 24, I believe diplomatically, "I'm sorry to seem harsh, but we simply cannot say, 'It is a credit to his talent that he manages to continue working in comics for the better part of the decade....' That is clearly an uncited opinion…. I'm a little concerned since I've had to remove the 'It is a credit to his talent' line before". In response, he defended using his own personal opinion, made an arguably uncivil remark ("I do not recognize your authority as absolute Wikipedia policy arbitrator" - Feb. 24) and launched the first clearly uncivil remark between us, calling my work "cowboy editing" (Feb. 26).

Trying to address his "absolute Wikipedia policy arbitrator" comment, I called for an RfC on the Project page [115] and at Talk:Buscema [116] on Feb. 26. This is nearly three months after first trying to work together, on Dec. 5. I don't believe that was rushing into it. I gave neutrally worded friendly notices to eight or nine WikiProject Comics longtime editors, some of whom I have disagreed with in the past (and who said so in the subsequent Talk-page discussion) but whom I know know the field well. A detailed comment period, numbering thousands of words by numerous editors, took place through March 2. Consensus appeared to have been reached for a new version that included some Skyelarke edits but rejected the bulk of them. When a peer expressed concern about Skyelarke reverting the consensus edits, I tried to give Skyelarke the benefit of the doubt ("Let's assume good faith on his part" - March 9)

Skyelarke does not accept consensus

...and additionally, from March 16 on, insisted on adding links to commercial sales/catalog sites. I continued to try to be positive and to express good faith (see here - April 20), but by April 27, I was expressing frustration that "Skylarke has gone back and reinstated a version of the John Buscema article that BY RfC CONSENSUS was disallowed."

Now, five months in, I said I thought it was time for admin intervention, i.e. mediation — yet I held off and continued to try working with Skyelarke. I also still tried to assume good faith and to keep perspective ("Again, nice work hammering out these things. I wish you could see that I'm working with you hand-in-hand; just because I'm in 85% agreement with you and not 100% agreement doesn't mean anything negative" - May 15).

Skyelarke has WP:OWN issues

I believe we reached an impasse with Skyelarke's June 15 WP:OWN posting [117] that said, "if anyone is interested giving [the article] an overall smoothing over, feel free to contact me at my discussion page."

Skyelarke has used false citations to promote his POV

...as noted in my edit summaries here [118], [119] and elsewhere.

Skyelarke would not mediate in good faith

By June, we were discussing Mediation on the Buscema talk page. I asked the admins to protect the Buscema article, which they did. Skyelarke appealed, and as admin David Eppstein noted on the Buscema talk page July 20, the protection was reasonable and would stay. Skyelarke went to Epstein's personal talk page to continue arguing for protection to be removed. Protection remained.

Eventually, we went to Mediation, which dragged on over minutiae and Skyelarke ignoring Mediator requests even for simple talk-page text issues. And so we are here.

The long and short of it is, you can see Skyelarke's non-consensus version, with POV, OR, etc., at User:Skyelarke/Buscema draft. I would prefer the consensus version that multiple editors discussed and worked on, and which is currently protected. Skyelarke is primarily a single-article editor who appears to treat this as a John Buscema fan page. Given everything that's happened, I don't believe it's in the article's interest to allow him to edit it. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:06, 18 December 2007 (UTC) (970 words)[reply]

Acts of "Canvasing" were to people in the wikiproject who know what they are doing.

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.

Also on some of the other acts such as the mass re-edits after the RfC. That was my doing, I am the one who proposed it and got it going, TB, as you call him, had nothing to do with that, so I feel that he should not be judged on that matter. My reason for doing that was the fact that this article was in bad shape during the RfC and I wanted to get some of the changes that we all agreed on happening, so the article will look better. Also during this time I think that Sky decided to give up on his "quest" or whatever and well I did not want to wait for someone who I thought was not going to come back.Phoenix₇₄₁(Talk Page) 14:08, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response to this.-->[120]

Note:If there is another place where something like this is supposed to be please tell me and I will move it.

Now correct me if I am wrong, but when did I go on trial, or whatever? Isn't this supposed to be about TB's and Sky's behavior towards the article. The fact that your using what I said like that just shows that you really have nothing and are looking for anything you can get to make TB look like a bad person, which he is not. Also I really do not see how it has to do with ANYTHING about this certain situation. In fact I kindly ask the people in charge to remove it since it adds nothing.Phoenix₇₄₁(Talk Page) 03:39, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

About Tenebrae's Requests for adminship

I believe he admitted to him screwing up in that instance, and even thought about dropping out because of it. The only reason he did not, was to see what people thought about his editing style and find ways to improve it. I think you just proved a point that TB knows when he is wrong and will gladly accept the punishment and he will learn from his mistakes, while Sky does not seem to even listen to any reason what so ever, and keeps trying the same trick over and over again, never learning and figuring out that he is indeed doing something wrong.

Also I ask again what does this have to even do with anything regarding the discussion at hand. It seems to me that you just want to keep dragging TB's name through the mud in order to 1) make his evidence less credible and 2)take some sort of revenge cause he called you a meatpuppet. I really do think that we should keep this discussion to stuff that has happened regarding the article in question, and NOT in actions done before this whole chaotic thing started.Phoenix₇₄₁(Talk Page) 21:26, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's unfortunate that the situation has devolved and the initial spirit of cooperation and discussion that I see in early discussions on the John Buscema talk page [121] [122] is no longer present.

Skyelarke seems not to understand Wikipedia:Neutral point of view

It is understandable, given that Skyelarke has made more edits to this article than anyone else (and indeed has edited only a few other articles) [123] that he would feel strongly about how the article should be. Unfortunately, that seems to extend to the inclusion of POV within the article. Skyelarke has advocated for the need to include original research in the article in order to give it "a certain direction and substance". [124] Later, he stated that "viewpoints can be expressed by individual Wikipedia contributors if they are justifiable conclusions". [125] Perhaps he has since reconsidered these statements, which were made early in his editing history. If not, I predict that this will continue to be a stumbling block for the article as these notions are, in my view, antithetical to Wikipedia.

Skyelarke has declined opportunities for mediation

Skyelarke declined to participate in mediation regarding the article. [126] He did set a date for when he felt he would be able to participate in the mediation process, but then insisted that it be on his terms. [127] Despite claiming not to be averse to mediation, he still continued to stall it. [128] (sentence removed by Daniel, per privilege. 09:42, 17 December 2007 (UTC)) Instead, it has proceeded to arbitration. And here we are.[reply]

Rebuttal to evidence against Tenebrae

Skyelarke and John254 contend that the February 2007 RfC was unfair. True, Tenebrae did not post a listing on WP:RFC/ART, which would have theoretically attracted the involvement of a broader scope of Wikipedia editors. However, he did seek the input from all members of Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics (not just the ones he contacted personally) by posting the RfC on the WikiProject Comics Notice Board.[129] As per an arbitrator in this case, WikiProjects are considered a reasonably neutral forum.[130] So, if the RfC was one-sided, it was not because Tenebrae had only invited like-minded editors to contribute.

As noted by Phoenix741 and Doczilla, solicitation of their involvement did not guarantee agreement with Tenebrae's point of view. In fact, some of the others to whom he sent notice have politely disagreed with his edits in the past. [131] [132] [133] Also, as noted in Skyelarke's own evidence, CovenantD was not contacted directly by Tenebrae about the RfC, thus invalidating any claim of canvassing in his case. Here, Skyelarke sees a conspiracy where there isn't one. And where John254 sees "persistent involvement" by canvassed editors, I see one edit in eight months. [134] If that's a "tag team", it's not a particularly effective one.

Tenebrae would not seek me out for someone to back him/her up one-sidedly.

Asgardian and Tenebrae got into an arbitration case, and I criticized them both (e.g., "When I asked you both about what needs to happen, you both talked about what other people need to do and not what you personally can do differently in the future.") [135]

John chooses some odd "evidence."

John made some odd choices as to what to call past favorable interactions with Tenebrae. Read them. In one of them, I was advising Tenebrae to solicit opinions from people with whom Tenebrae had previously had big disagreements. So (1) there's no favorable interaction in there at all. (2) As a matter of fact, because that's an example of my advising Tenebrae to seek input from the people most likely to disagree with him/her, John therefore has actually posted evidence as to why Tenebrae would not have contacted me if that had been to solicit a position of one-sided support.

I could post a lot more stuff, but posting even this much interrupts how busy I am in real life.

Skyelarke acts in bad faith

Over the past 48 hours Skylark has been actively altering the talk page to the Buschema article [136]. This included breaking threads: [137] (Template 2) and [138] (Possible Copyright Violations).

After this was undone, Skylark posted the assertion that the article is fair game for editing even though this arbitration is yet to be closed [139] and reverted the talk page. He then added a note that the article was the subject of an arbitration case [140]. Choice of past tense when this is still ongoing smacks of bad faith. Also note his edit summary for that particular post.

Additionally, within 24 hours of Jpgordon unprotecting the article , Skyelarke resumed editing the actual article [141].

before using the last evidence template, please make a copy for the next person

{Write your assertion here}

Place argument and diffs which support your assertion; for example, your first assertion might be "So-and-so engages in edit warring", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits to specific articles which show So-and-so engaging in edit warring.

{Write your assertion here}

Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.