User:Scott Free/study

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.

[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 (and 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 exercize to make edits to the article during the RfC, began - [7]

Here are some samples 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. 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 advocation of the biased 'mass re-edit' exercize and my exclusion from it (and his participation in it). The reversion he is refering to was my effort to reintegrate the missing sections into his version. [9]

d- [Tb made inflammatory remarks - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AJohn_Buscema&diff=111246045&oldid=111219604]

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 -[10]

e- My attempts to discuss were largely ignored -[11]

f- The version established after RfC process ended on March 7, only had 4 referenced passages - [12]

These kinds of repeated statements -

[13] [14] [15]

seems to give an exagerated 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.

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

1- J Greb defends TB's assertion that cited open-ended guideline justifies peremptory reversion. [16]

2-J Greb (although presenting certain discussion) defends TB's improprer arbitrary limiting of amount of images initiated in RfC. [17]

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

[18]

(Line 212 represents the entire RFA 'consensus discussion' referred to [19])

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.[20]

There was a canvassing controversy -[21]

Conduct concerns were raised - [22]

and there was questionable discussion regarding said RfA

[23] [24]

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 [25]

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. [26]

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.

[27]

[28]

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

[29] [30] [31] [32]

e- Misleading page protection request - filed a day after RfM [33]

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'?) Contention that mediation process is being ignored less than a day after RfM filing is premature.

a- Avoidance of basic content discussion - (simply reiterates dogmatic policy restrictions- including silent refusal to provide specific policy reference alluded to after repeated requests.)[34]

b- Anexample of misleading edit descriptions, misrepresenting guidelines to justify reversion, and disregarding substantiated objections. - [35]

Compare with actual edits - (without going into content, they seem noticeably more extensive than described) - [36]

c- Improper use of Non-notable policy - dogmatic footnoting imperatives - dogmatic list guideline citation - disparaging edit remarks - [37]

d- TB reverted a link added by User:Tman930 using misrepresented policy - (dogmatic rejection of commercial web sites)- [38]

Reverted it again after following explanation [39]

and my objection to policy misrepresentation - [40]

e- Reverted User:Mmaillot reference link

TB maintained reversion, despite my substantiated objections (contained in previous diff) and then replies with an accusation - [41]

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- [42]

with the current version reverted to by Tenebrae prior to requesting edit protection [43]

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 - [44]

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)

Many different types can be found in previous sections -

The following in response to an arbitration case preparation sub-page I had created. [45]

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

[46] [47] [48] [49] [50]

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

[51]

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

[52]

[53]

a- Tag-teaming with RfC participants

DoczillaJ Greb Phoenix741 defend TB's position on Tb talk page [54] [55] [56]

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.

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

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

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)