After considering /Evidence and discussing proposals with other Arbitrators, parties and others at /Workshop, Arbitrators may place proposals which are ready for voting here. Arbitrators should vote for or against each point or abstain. Only items that receive a majority "support" vote will be passed. Conditional votes for or against and abstentions should be explained by the Arbitrator before or after his/her time-stamped signature. For example, an Arbitrator can state that she/he would only favor a particular remedy based on whether or not another remedy/remedies were passed. Only Arbitrators or Clerks should edit this page; non-Arbitrators may comment on the talk page.

For this case, there are 12 active Arbitrators, so 7 votes are a majority.

Motions and requests by the parties

Place those on /Workshop. Motions which are accepted for consideration and which require a vote will be placed here by the Arbitrators for voting.
Motions have the same majority for passage as the final decision.

Template

1) {text of proposed motion}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Proposed temporary injunctions

Four net "support" votes needed to pass (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support")
24 hours from the first vote is normally the fastest an injunction will be imposed.

Template

1) {text of proposed orders}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Proposed final decision

Proposed 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.

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Edit-warring considered harmful

2) Edit-warring is harmful. When disagreements arise, users are expected to discuss their differences rationally rather than reverting ad infinitum. Revert rules should not be construed as an entitlement or inalienable right to revert, nor do they endorse reverts as an editing technique.

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Assume good faith and remain civil

3) Users are expected to assume good faith in their dealings with other editors, especially those whom they had conflicts with in the past. All users are expected to display civility toward one another, even in the presence of editorial disagreements or when another user has made a mistake.

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Page protection

4) Pursuant to the protection policy, full protection may be used to end an edit war. When this occurs, the editors should seek consensus through talkpage discussion, or initiate dispute resolution where necessary, so that protection can be lifted promptly and the page can be edited again.

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Role of the Arbitration Committee

5) It is not the rôle of the Arbitration Committee to settle content disputes among editors. This is to be done through the normal editing process, or where necessary through the content-based forms of dispute resolution. However, the Committee may provide guidance or direction allowing a clearly stymied editing process to resume, particularly in intractable situations where other methods have not resolved the issue.

Support:

Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:34, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see anything objectionable in this wording. The Committee has gone this far in the past with mixed success. But it is within our role to offer more creative solutions other that bans. FloNight (talk) 21:47, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not that this will pass, but I wish to sign-post my leanings in this matter. James F. (talk) 23:11, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

No, best we stay out of this role entirely. Kirill 01:46, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think this is our role. Anybody can provide such guidance or direction. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 06:01, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps we may organise or facilitate efforts to reach a resolution, but "guidance or direction" implies us deciding the content issue. --bainer (talk) 23:51, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Paul August ☎ 19:46, 7 January 2008 (UTC) Per James.[reply]
The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:38, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Best the new crew settle this point. Fred Bauder (talk) 04:31, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Role of the Arbitration Committee

5.1) It is not the rôle of the Arbitration Committee to settle good-faith content disputes among editors.

Support:

Kirill 01:46, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Second choice. In response to Kirill's comment above, I see this decision as an example of what I am describing. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:53, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fred Bauder (talk) 04:31, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 06:01, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
FloNight (talk) 21:47, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:40, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
James F. (talk) 23:11, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
bainer (talk) 23:51, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Paul August ☎ 19:46, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:38, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Template

6) {text of proposed principle}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Proposed findings of fact

Locus of dispute

1) The locus of the dispute is John Buscema, an article about a comic book artist best-known for his work on Marvel superhero comics during the 1960's and 1970's.

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Competing editorial visions

2) Tenebrae (talk · contribs), an experienced editor on a variety of comic-book-related subjects, and Skyelarke (talk · contribs), a specialist editor on John Buscema, have each devoted substantial effort to editing John Buscema. They have major differences of opinion regarding what material should be included in this article. Among other things, Tenebrae has opined that Skyelarke's versions contain too much personal opinion and praise for Buscema's artistry as well as too many images. Skyelarke opines that Tenebrae's preferred versions omit a body of sourced and relevant information.

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Edit-war

3) Disagreements between Skyelarke and Tenebrae in the editing of John Buscema continued over several months, despite an article-content request for comment filed in an attempt to resolve them. The parties' dispute erupted into full-scale edit-warring in June 2007. On June 12, 2007, an administrator full-protected the page to induce the parties to seek consensus.

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Continued disputes and protection

4) Since the protection in June, no progress has been made in resolving the content dispute, and a mediation attempt was unsuccessful. As a result, John Buscema was fully-protected and unavailable for editing for more than six months. Such lengthy protection should be unnecessary for any article and is certainly inordinate in this instance.

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

User conduct

5) The record of user conduct in this matter includes some remarks by the parties that would have been better left unsaid, as well as edit-warring as described above. However, the evidence does not reflect conduct by these users calling for Arbitration Committee sanctions against them at this time.

Support:

Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:34, 1 January 2008 (UTC) However, change to oppose if remedy 4 or 4.1 passes, to prevent the decision from being self-contradictory. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:51, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Kirill 01:46, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fred Bauder (talk) 04:31, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:43, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

I think some type of sanction is warranted. FloNight (talk) 21:53, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 06:01, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Per Flo; will have to consider this more. James F. (talk) 23:11, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Paul August ☎ 20:05, 7 January 2008 (UTC) Even remedies 1, 2 and 3 are a kind of "sanction".[reply]

Abstain:

The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:38, 7 January 2008 (UTC) Not sure about this[reply]

Template

6) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Editing of John Buscema

1) For a period of three months, Skyelarke and Tenebrae are urged not to make substantial content edits to this article, but instead to allow a consensus version of the article, complying with all applicable policies, to develop through input by other contributors. Any editor may file another content RfC and/or notify the relevant wikiproject urging attention to this article. During the three-month period, Skyelarke and Tenebrae are not banned from the article, unless an administrator imposes a ban under paragraph 3 below, and are permitted to make factual corrections and other similar edits. They are also encouraged to participate in discussion on the talkpage. However, they should allow other editors to take the lead in developing the article and arriving at consensus on what material should be included.

Support:

Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:34, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Removed reference to "article is to be unprotected" since it now already has been. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:16, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Kirill 01:46, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Paul August ☎ 19:53, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Rube Goldberg Fred Bauder (talk) 04:31, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Way too complicated. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 06:01, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Prefer Remedy 4.1 with Remedies 2. and 3. to follow. FloNight (talk) 22:04, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
James F. (talk) 23:11, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Prefer the latter remedies. --bainer (talk) 00:20, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:38, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Subsequent editing

2) After three months, Skyelarke and Tenebrae may freely edit John Buscema but should respect consensus developed in the interim concerning the basic structure of the article and the nature of the material that should be included, including but not limited to the number of images.

Support:

Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:34, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Kirill 01:46, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(Only if 3.4 fails.) Fred has a point, but the structure of an article and the number of images and issues like that only marginally touches on NPOV issues. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 06:01, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
With Remedies 3 and 4.1. FloNight (talk) 22:07, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
James F. (talk) 23:11, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Jpgordon on Fred's point. bainer (talk) 00:20, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Paul August ☎ 20:10, 7 January 2008 (UTC) Per Jpgordon's response to Fred's objection.[reply]

Oppose:

Content is never properly determined by consensus, but by reference to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Fred Bauder (talk) 04:31, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:38, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Support:

Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:34, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If remedy 4 or 4.1 is adopted instead of remedy 1, the words "either before or three months have expired" should be replaced with "after the initial three-month ban has expired". Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:47, 2 January 2008 (UTC) Striking comment per Bainer below[reply]

Added "or page" to include remedy for any possible talkpage disruption (hopefully this will not occur). Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:01, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Kirill 01:46, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Post-ban, if 3.4 passes. The key is disruptive. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 06:01, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
With Remedies 2 and 4.1. FloNight (talk) 22:07, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
James F. (talk) 23:11, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No need to amend as Brad suggests, because this is directed at spillover disputes too (not just ones on John Buscema). bainer (talk) 00:20, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Paul August ☎ 20:13, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:38, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Content is never properly determined by consensus, but by reference to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Fred Bauder (talk) 04:31, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Editing of John Buscema

4) Tenebrae (talk · contribs) and Skyelarke (talk · contribs) are banned from editing John Buscema for one year. They are welcome to edit the talk page. Since the article was fully (and improperly) protected since June 12, 2007, this ban will be considered to have started on that date.

Support:

First choice. jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:58, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:38, 7 January 2008 (UTC) 2nd choice[reply]

Oppose:

Admittedly simpler, but too harsh. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:10, 2 January 2008 (UTC) Also don't like the wording "improperly protected" which could be considered as a criticism of the admin who protected. Any user could have asked for unprotection at any time and to the best of my knowledge this was never done. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:44, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Too long. Prefer 4.1. FloNight (talk) 22:23, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Prefer 4.1. Kirill 04:28, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
James F. (talk) 23:11, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I also dislike the "improperly protected" wording, it implies criticism of the protecting admin (even if it intends to describe the protection itself). We can say now that the protection lasted too long, but the protecting admin wasn't to know that in advance. bainer (talk) 00:20, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Editing of John Buscema

4.1) Tenebrae (talk · contribs) and Skyelarke (talk · contribs) are banned from editing John Buscema for three months. They are welcome to edit the talk page.

Support:

With Remedy 2. and Remedy 3. kicking in after Remedy 4.1 ends. FloNight (talk) 22:02, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Second choice. (It's only two months shorter than what I proposed above, actually.) --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 22:24, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Too harsh, in my view, per my proposals above. However, better than 4, so second choice. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:52, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Kirill 04:28, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
James F. (talk) 23:11, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
bainer (talk) 00:20, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Paul August ☎ 20:14, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:38, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Template

5) {text of proposed remedy}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Proposed enforcement

Enforcement by block

1) In the event Skylarke or Tenebrae violates a page-ban imposed under above remedies, he may be briefly blocked for up to one week. After five blocks, the maximum block length is increased to one month. All blocks are to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/John Buscema#Log of blocks and bans.

Support:

Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:52, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Kirill 01:46, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fred Bauder (talk) 04:31, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 06:01, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Changed the wording to make less specific. The point is to make it clear that the topic ban is enforced by blocks. FloNight (talk) 22:11, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
James F. (talk) 23:11, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
bainer (talk) 13:09, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Paul August ☎ 20:15, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:38, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Discussion by Arbitrators

General

Motion to close

Implementation notes

Clerks and Arbitrators should use this section to clarify their understanding of the final decision--at a minimum, a list of items that have passed. Additionally, a list of which remedies are conditional on others (for instance a ban that should only be implemented if a mentorship should fail), and so on. Arbitrators should not pass the motion until they are satisfied with the implementation notes.

Passing are:
- Principles 1-4 and 5.1;
- Findings 1-4;
- Remedies 4.1, 2, and 3 (in that order please); and
- Enforcement 1. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:19, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vote

Four net "support" votes needed to close case (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support")
24 hours from the first motion is normally the fastest a case will close.

Move to close. Everything necessary has passed. The consensus remedy is acceptable even though not my first choice, and I don't think awaiting input from more arbitrators would change the result. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:21, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)Close. We have a complete case. FloNight (talk) 20:24, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Close The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:38, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Close Paul August ☎ 21:11, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Close. --bainer (talk) 23:33, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Close. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 01:26, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]