Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Daredevil

To be accepted by committee, RE: Daredevil

Requesting OnWiki (public) between User:Tenebrae and User:GodzillaWax RE: Daredevil. There have been several disagreements between us two parties. Tenebrae asked for, and consent from GodzillaWax was given, for mediation. The current dispute stems from this paragraph below.

Nocenti and Romita Jr.

A round-robin of creators contributed in the year that followed Born Again: writers Mark Gruenwald, Danny Fingeroth, Steve Englehart (under the pseudonym "John Harkness"), and Ann Nocenti, and pencilers Steve Ditko, Barry Windsor-Smith, Louis Williams, Sal Buscema, Todd McFarlane, Keith Pollard, and Chuck Patton. Longshot co-creator Nocenti, who'd written #236, became the regular writer for a long, stable, four-and-a-quarter year run of all but two issues from #238-291 (Jan. 1987 - April 1991). John Romita Jr. joined as penciler from #270-289 (Sept. 1989 - Feb. 1991), and was generally inked by Al Williamson. The well-received and award-winning team specifically addressed societal issues, with Murdock, now running a non-profit urban legal center, confronting sexism, racism and nuclear proliferation while fighting supervillains. Nocenti's run is also of note for introducing the popular antagonist Typhoid Mary, a supporting character from #254-263.

GodzillaWax and I have gone back and forth over whether something can be called "well-received" or a "stable run" when there was a 4 1/4-year run after the previous year's round-robin; when artist John Romita Jr. became a comics star with the series; and when inker Al Williamson won awards for the series three years running. I noted in the Talk page that "well-received" does not necessarily mean critically acclaimed, citing McDonald's burgers and Stephen King novels; and I cited Merriam-Webster's #1 definition for the adjective "stable" ("1 a : firmly established : FIXED, STEADFAST b : not changing or fluctuating"), which he does not accept.

I also ask mediation over GodzillaWax's frequent use of insults. I'm sure he feels put-upon by me as well, though I would note that other editors on the History page and elsewhere have been insulted by him with phrases like, "Will the Virgin Brigade please let their balls drop?" Thanks very much for taking the time and trouble as an Arbitration/Mediation volunteer. — Tenebrae 23:04, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Wanted to make my piece known-> Tenebrae has left out a major part of our disagreement. He has tried to say "The award winning team..." with respect to comic book writer Ann Nocenti, penciller John Romita JR and inker Al Williamson. I have pointed out on numerous occasions that this is factually incorrect, as only Williamson won an award for his inking. An example I made on the Daredevil Talk page is that you cannot say the Los Angeles Lakers are an award-winning team if they had a miserable season and Kobe Bryant won the league MVP (relating this to sports terminology since it seems to go across better). He has taken offense to my dislike of Nocenti's writing (though I need to point out this distaste has never been expressed on the article itself - only in discussion of changes) and has tried, it seems, to counter this by suggesting she won an award on the title, which is absolutely not true. I have no problem with him pointing out that Al Williamson won an award, but I find it disingenuous to suggest Nocenti won an award by association of saying "the award winning team."

As far as "well-regarded" - for one, this is a POV statement. How can one prove something was well-regarded? It implies a fan or market reaction, which is subjective when not provided with a source. I don't see how he reasons that "well-received" says nothing of if something is regarded as "good". I suggested he consider the close relationship between the work 'well' and the word 'good'.

Likewise I have argued that saying something is 'stable' is additionally POV, though this, as I have pointed out in discussion, I have less of a problem with. 'Stable' is still a relative term, though I can understand the need not to go overboard on eliminating every word with relative connotations. In fact, when Tenebrae first came onto the page, I pleaded to him to not go overboard himself in removing from the page all language that was strictly not factual (by which I mean relative terms, et al). Tenebrae was steadfast that an encyclopedia must not contain anything that cannot be proven without a source, and I relented. It puzzles me now though that he argues to the contrary of his original opinion.

My last point is that I do not appreciate that Tenebrae constantly attacks me through passive aggressive means. Moreover, a problem I had with him was that he has on multiple occasions said he was playing the conciliatory role on the Daredevil page only to talk poorly of me on other pages (without notifying me I might add). I expressed to him on his talk page that this kind of behavior of running around behind someone's back calling them names is unacceptable. As far as "Will the Virgin Brigade please let their balls drop?", this is something I said quite a long time ago, tongue-in-cheek, when someone continually tried to remove any and all references to the fact that there was implied sexual intercourse in 'Daredevil'. It should be noted that this sentence had nothing to do with Tenebrae, was said weeks before he ever started making changes on the DD page, was said in jest, and was never complained about by the other party. Sure it was a bit out of line, but like I said, the other party had no issue with it, presumably because they understood it was in jest. But yet Tenebrae goes mining through edit changes months old in attempt to somehow prove that I am some sort of monster. I began serious revision of the Daredevil entry weeks back because the page was in very bad shape. In fact, the majority of everything that is on that page now is something I wrote.

Clearly I care very much about the character. Tenebrae rubbed me wrong by coming on to the page and calling me a fanboy and drastically altering the page. Naturally, this is the essence of Wikipedia - open collaboration - but he continually removed factual entries (on more than three occasions, and I would be happy to provide examples) with no regard to whether they were true or not. He then took offense that I took offense and like I said called me a fanboy and said negative things about me on other pages. Frankly I am tired of him always looking for confrontation. I have tried hard lately to compromise (you'll notice by looking at the edit history that I am continually working with his changes and reinserting facts that he has removed capriciously) and work with him. But this latest row has arisen because he has taken issue with my trying to remove POV statements of his. He even went so far as to ask me not to make changes to the page anymore, which is surely not within his right.

Overall I am exhausted of this. I very much appreciate any of your help in resolving this. GodzillaWax 16:37, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

For the record, I have never used the term "fanboy". I have, instead, as you'll see by my posts, tried to use civil language, and for that have been ridiculed by this person twice now as "passive aggressive".

Also, whether or not another party complained about his behavior (that party may have been simply unwilling to engage with someone of such incivility) doesn't change the fact of the bad behavior.

Also, in my postings about GodzillaWax, I used the link User:GodzillaWax, so that he could go to his "What links here" button and see everything I was saying.

Also, his description of what I asked for seems a misconstruing, intentional or unintentional: I asked that he not revert the changes now under mediation, since I gave reasons including a primary dictionary defintion. I never requested him "not to make changes to the page". That's simply not true, and his assertion is part of a pattern of such misconstruing.

I didn't bring up a host of things and kept the focus narrow because the Mediation Process page notes a) that a Mediator will read the existing Talk Page material, and b) we are to keep posts on this page short. I'd also add that others on the Daredevil Talk Page have had trouble with this person

Thanks very much for accepting this for mediation. — Tenebrae 15:32, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I labelled you "passive aggressive" because you say things like "I've held my tongue about your apparent age" - which obviously implies there's something detrimental about how old he thinks I am that he is not saying. There is a pattern of saying things in this fashion - thinly veiled insults - that he does not own up to.

Secondly, Tenebrae asking me not to change the DD entry had nothing to do with mediation, as we had not even agreed to go to mediation yet. He asked me not to change his entry because he thought it was harassment for another wiki editor to change his words. It was not until hours after that that he applied for mediation.

As far as this "other party" that has complained about me, Herculaneum completely misconstrued something I said to have an entirely different meaning than intended. She responded by throwing insult after insult at me. I responded to her that her attacks were out of line with regards to wiki standards, and she continued anyway. I am reporting her to the admins for her actions. So saying that "another party" has had problems with me is a tad unfair given that I'm the victim in the exchange.

I am so sick and tired of being construed as a monster. My crime, it appears, is that I at first took too much offense at the wholesale detrimental changes Tenebrae was making, and was too vocal in my objection. He objected that I was so vocal, and how did I respond? By working with his edits. By trying my best to solve this issue. For whatever reason though, Tenebrae has appointed me his arch nemesis and seeks to stymie me every step of the way. Now theres no reasoning with him, to the point that if I edit the page he threatens to report me for harassment or somesuch.

So you're intervention is much appreciated. I would like to just get back to being able to work on the page without the fear of Tenebrae accusing me of every part of the wiki handbook he can find. And Id like to make sure that the changes that are made are factual and not misleading. Cheers! GodzillaWax 16:59, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

GodzillaWax leaving obsessive message on my User page

GodzillaWax has chased a newbie away from contributing to Daredevil, and has just left three messages in a day on my user page, clearly meant as harrassment.

• His obsessiveness, his incivility, and his angry writing are chasing people away from Wikipedia. I'm about ready to leave after having written over 50 extensive historical and biographical comic-book entries that were very much needed (including such important entities as Syd Shores, George Tuska, Malcolm Wheeler-Nicholson, Motion Pictures Funnies Weekly — none of these had entries).
• And yet such people as GodzillaWax just keep poking, and jabbing, and bragging about the "awesomeification" (his word) of the Daredevil page from his non-NPOV fancruft, his original-research "analysis", and his biases toward his fan-fave creators. Going by the "What links here" button on his User page, I don't think he's contributed to anything else.
• His behavior is chasing people away. Please go to Talk:Daredevil and see how he spoke to a newbie who simply came on to compliment the page, and in return got soapbox and snideness and adolescent bragging.
• If GodzillaWax is the kind of person Wikipedia abides, then people who contribute widely and try to make this a real encyclopedia will just have that much more difficulty doing so. — Tenebrae 22:52, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what to do anymore. I tried to extend the olive branch and I get labelled obsessive, angry, etc. Let's look at my three posts to him:

• I asked for help with the "newbie" I've "chased away". Herculaneum has been insulting me one more than one page because of a miscommunication (which I've outlined in detail on the DD talk page). Moreover, I noticed that Tenebrae and Heculaneum have contributed to the same discussions on three different pages. I asked him that if they were friendly, if he could please ask her to cool down; Tenebrae knows the wiki rule book and all the relevant links to it a lot better than I do. I was asking for his help for crying out loud.

• I noted that he never acknowledged he was wrong in accusing me of something on the DD page on one occasion. In fact, a moderator (Sango123) even interjected to tell Tenebrae that he was wrong in telling me to stop. Tenebrae has in the past jumped on every little perceived wrong, so in the name of trying to start anew I asked that if he wanted to apologize I'd be cool with that.

• The last was an out and out compliment in an effort to smoothe our relations. I mentioned how dedicated Tenebrae is and how much he works on wikipedia and that that was cool. I wish I had that much time to spend on it.

See what I mean now? No matter what I do, Tenebrae attacks me. I mean look at this exchange just now. Im trying to make things better, and he attacks me - calling me names, saying my contributions are "fancruft" (is that a word? maybe as much of one as "awesomeification"). I don't know what to do anymore. Please help. I'm finished trying to smoothe things out.

Thanks! GodzillaWax 18:21, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure that three messages in a day, especially one asking pointedly don't I work or go to school, is any "olive branch." — Tenebrae 21:19, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

There was an article online recently about how in a majority of cases, people misinterpret the tone of emails. I think maybe this applies now. (and since when is there a daily limit on messages to another user?) GodzillaWax 21:37, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

• Since the both of you have indicated what appears to be willingness to mediate, I'll go ahead and accept. I'll assign a mediator shortly. Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 02:42, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

• I am not a member of the MedCom, but I would like to volunteer, for this case to try and help remedy the dispute. KnowledgeOfSelf 00:15, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I think this is an excellent solution; KOS, you are assigned, and if you need any help, please let us know. Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 00:16, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Questions regarding this dispute.

From: KnowledgeOfSelf

1. From reading the discussions on the DD talk page, and this page itself, I can not with definition put an exact date on when this dispute started. If you both could give me a time period for when you thought the dispute got to the point that mediation was needed.
2. Can you both provide examples of where you tried to solve the dispute before requesting mediation?

Tenebrae response

The issues between us began when User:GodzillaWax reverted edits that I'd made to clean up non-NPOV and non-encyclopedic text, and added these two aggressive, insulting, and by Wikiepedia standards highly inappropriate History Page comments (emphases mine):

• 17:53, 23 January 2006 GodzillaWax (→History - Inappropriate tone? Are you serious? What do you do for a living, write algebra textbooks?)
• 17:52, 23 January 2006 GodzillaWax (→Marvel Knights and a Guardian Devil - Your aim to sterilize, pepe, has robbed the article of some facts. Like that DD was cancelled due to lagging sales)
• Daredevil actually hadn't been canceled, but be that as it may: On 08:27, 25 January 2006, I added Jack Kirby -- who designed Daredevil's original costume, and created his trademark apparatus, his billy club — to the list of co-creators ("created by Stan Lee and Bill Everett, with input by Jack Kirby — footnote 1").

User:GodzillaWax in Jan. 25 took great exception to this, despite my footnoted quotes from a published source who had interviewed both Kirby and Everett. GodzillaWax said Marvel owned Daredevil and that Marvel didn't credit Kirby, so that was the final word. While I and other Wikipedia editors found his argument specious — for decades Marvel didn't credit Steve Ditko as Spider-Man's co-creators, nor did DC credit Siegel & Shuster as Superman's — I compromised and accepted his relegating Kirby's co-credit to my footnote.

This gesture apparently wasn't enough: GodzillaWax — whose History Page comments to Daredevil editors besides me were also filled with insults, as well as braggadocio about the "awesomeification" (his word) of his non-NPOV and original-research edits — began taking exception to virtually any edit I made to what he was perceiving as "his" Daredevil page. (I say this because in Discussion Pages, he has claimed more than once that the Daredevil page was nothing until he came along — which aside from anything else is an overreaching claim.)

It has reached a point that even when I presented the primary dictionary definition of the adjective "stable" in the Discussion Page on Feb. 10 Talk:Daredevil_(comics)#CC_of_response_to_above.2C_from_GodzillaWax_page, he would revert it and present arguments that boiled down to "I say 'stable' means this, and that's that". He did the same when I referred to a Daredevil creative team (whose writer he didn't like, and about whom he argued with previous editors) as "well-received". I cited the writer's 4 1/4-year run — extremely lengthy by modern comic-book standards — plus the penciller's industry-stardom from his work on the title, plus the inker winning three annual awards in a row for his work on the title. When he objected to this adjective as non-NPOV, I gave the aforementioned objective facts, and additionally stated that while Stephen Kind novels, for example, are objectively "well-received", that is not the same as saying they're necessarily good. He kept removing that as well.

Finally, in this single paragraph, he objected to a reference to this Daredevil team as "award-winning" because the inker won three awards. I responded with a published example — one of hundreds similar — of the movie "Ben-Hur" having won 11 Oscars … which includes Oscars won by the sound person and the lighting person. Given the additional fact that an inker, by definition, does not work in a vacuum but has to ink over existing, collaborative pencil work, would seem to make "award-winning team" a similarly objective statement.

In conclusion, many editors have had trouble with GodzillaWax's insults, arrogance, and proprietary feeling about the Daredevil page — which may or may not be, based on his User/Talk pages' "what links here" results, his only contribution to Wikipedia. Please go back to the Daredevil History and Discussion Pages and see such insults as his "Virgin Brigade" comments — which he defends as "funny", as if, even were it true, that would make them appropriate.

As for attempts at resolution: I extended a hand — in so many words — on 19:39, 30 January 2006 at Talk:Daredevil_(comics)/Archive_01#Isnt_it_Odd. This was followed on the page by his Jan. 31 comment headed " Put On Your Knickers, Sallys", and one by another user, on Feb. 3, " Is there something we can do about GodzillaWax?"

Thank you again for any help. I have been avoiding contributing to Wikipedia much lately specifically because of GodzillaWax now harassing me on my user page. — Tenebrae 19:31, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

GodzillaWax Response

The problems began when Tenebrae first came on the page a while back. I was upset with his contributions because he was making wholesale revisions that included replacing facts with things that can not be proven as such. There are a lot of examples of this, but I'll give a few:

• He repeatedly deleted my contribution that Daredevil could withstand the Purple Man's powers because of his willpower (and by repeatedly I mean on at least two occasions). I assume Tenebrae thought this was a POV statement, but it is actually factual. The Purple Man is a villain that dates back to the early 1960s, first appearing in issue #4. Over the decades it came to be established that DD's willpower kept him outside the influence of Purple Man's powers. Once I pointed out that Tenebrae should read the relevant issue before deleting the entry again, he stopped.

• He repeatedly removed my reference to the comic receiving a double billing with the Black Widow, again presumably because he thought it was non-NPOV. I had to instruct him to go look at the covers to the issues of the time, which indeed did have Black Widow's name up with Daredevils.

There are other examples. Very early on I expressed my anger that Tenebrae kept deleting facts. I said he should use google to see if these things are true before removing them. He responded that it was not his job to do research. Yet, for other people's contributions, he would add the 'citation needed' tag. I understand that maybe Tenebrae doesn't have an encyclopedic knowledge of the character, but that does not justify removing factual contributions of other editors, especially when the focus of those removals is on a particular contributor.

The other issue I had is that not only was he removing facts, he was adding things that cannot be proven.

• First, with regards to Kirby. Tenebrae has argued that Kirby should get co-creator status along with Stan Lee and Bill Everett. The problem is, Tenebrae's only source for this matter is an interview that itself concludes that the truth behind the matter may never be known. The article even points out that the memories of those involved - Everett - are fuzzy and contradictory. I don't think anyone with an objective stance could conclude that Kirby deserves credit based on that information. My point to Tenebrae at the time if it came down to a question of trusting a) the corporate and publicly traded entity that has owned the character for 40+ years and has to deal with creators on a day-to-day basis, or b) a wiki contributor inferring from unclear sources, I'm going to side with the owner of the material. That doesn't mean they're absolutely right. Maybe some day Marvel will acknowledge Kirby as creator. Or maybe some day some conclusive evidence will be provided. But until that time you can't say Kirby had a hand in DD to the point of naming him "co-creator"

• With regards to "award-winning" : my position on this matter is pretty well detailed on both the Talk page as well as this one, so I would refer anyone interested to that.

• With regards to "well-received" : this again I have outlined in a lot of detail on the pages mentioned above. But "well-received" implies market reaction. What source does Tenebrae have for this? Nocenti and Romita JR did not win any awards on the title, so you cannot objectively say they were well-received in that respect.

• With regards to "stable": Stable is a relative term, because it implies some status of an object relative to instability. Additionally, stable is not a synonym for "long". What I was trying to explain to Tenebrae is that inferring that something is stable because it had a 4.25 year run is not perfectly NPOV. You can say it was long (another relative term) because relative to the years preceeding it, it was a long run. But stable implies more. It implies the state of the book, the state of the creators working on the book, etc. I asked Tenebrae why he was choosing to add this word, what value was gained from it, because he had already chosen to describe Nocenti et al.'s run as long. If he is trying to hammer home the point that it was a lengthy run, then it is unnecessary because he had already said it was "long". Moreover, if the run truly was "stable", then why did it end? Was Nocenti fired from the book? Did she leave of her own accord? All of these issues arise from the use of the word.

These points above underscore the problems I have had with Tenebrae. I concede that I was way too harsh when Tenebrae first came on the page. To be perfectly honest, I thought he was a troll because of the amount of things he was deleting. But when I saw he was trying to make things NPOV, I began working with his edits, trying to correct some mistakes he was making along the way. And its hardly a matter, as Tenebrae seems to suggest above, of me hawking over everything he does. In fact there are other users, like Jamdav86 that I've tried to work with regarding major pages to the page (please refer to the DD talk page which includes my discussions on the matter).

But my last issue is the name calling and personal attacks. He holds my use of the word "awesomification" over my head as if its some proof that I am an evil cross-breed of Satan and a particularly ugly barnyard animal. Certainly had I known the tongue-in-cheek term would be used against me months after its usage, I'd have changed it. Additionally, he holds the "virgin brigade" comment over me as well. Please understand the context of the edit: someone kept removing a reference to the sexual relationship between DD and the character of the Black Widow. Again, someone was removing a fact for some unknown reason. One thing I have learned from this whole experience is to never add any humor to a discussion of changes because someone out there will misinterpret it.

Additionally in recent weeks he has continually pointed at what he perceives my age to be as some sort of insult. It's been humorous from my vantage point mostly since I'm pretty sure I am older than Tenebrae by a factor of a decade or two, but its mostly how hes been throwing it around as a pejorative that bothers me.

With regards to the "is there something we can do about GodzillaWax" comment that he leaves unattributed: this is user Herculaneum. I advise you to look through the history of her edits, because she has attacked a number of people in her short time on Wikipedia. Please refer to the entry on the DD talk page about a "Miscommunication" as to why her attacks on me were unwarranted. It is hardly, as Tenebrae suggests, a mutiny on the DD page as far as users disliking me. It is a single user who grossly misinterpreted something I said and, without asking for any clarification, attacked me a number of times.

As far as things that have been done to rectify our (Tenebrae and me) issues, I would point to my attempts to actually work with him. Like I said, I was wrong in assuming Tenebrae was a troll, and once I got a handle of what he was attempting to do on the DD page, I worked with him. I've worked with others in implementing new changes. I've started discussions on how to make the page more NPOV. I've clearly and cogently expressed any objections I have to any edits on the page that I wish to change. But even after all these concessions and compromises, I still get harassment warnings from Tenebrae because he disagrees with my changes, which is really the difference between us, in my opinion. When I disagree with a Tenebrae edit, I go to the talk page and explain myself. When Tenebrae disagrees with my changes, he gives me harassment warnings as if somehow it is not within my rights as a wikipedia contributor to work towards making a page better.

In recent weeks, I've even tried to start over with Tenebrae. I went out of my way to compliment him on how hard he works on these pages. I asked for his help with Herculaneum since I had noticed they had worked together before. And in the name of putting water under the bridge, I tried to reconcile a past issue that had gotten under my skin by seeing if Tenebrae was willing to apologize. All of these three issues are on Tenebraes talk page. And for all this trouble? Tenebrae again labels me obsessive and abusive.

All I want is to be able to work on the DD page without being afraid that somehow the things I do are going to unreasonably get me reported to an admin. Ive said it before, but its obvious I care about this character- I've put a lot of work into making the page what it is now (it was significantly worse, if I can get on a soap box for a second, before I started on it). Even this though is somehow used against me by Tenebrae - is it somehow a crime to only contribute to one page (which isn't even true...)?

Anyway, KOS, thank you for your intervention, I appreciate it. GodzillaWax 10:11, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Quick Tenebrae response

• How Daredevil defeated a minor villain in issue #4 seemed just a bit much for the scope of a Wikipedia article.
• The title of the magazine never changed when the Black Widow co-starred. Just like the famous Green Lantern issues of 1970-71 that co-starred Green Arrow, the indicia, the official title of the magazine, which The Grand Comics Database and others go by, always remained the same. Only the cover treatment changed. See Green Lantern.
• Merriam-Webster's #1 definition for the adjective "stable" is "1 a : firmly established : FIXED, STEADFAST b : not changing or fluctuating".
• I have never, ever, used such language as "an evil cross-breed of Satan and a particularly ugly barnyard animal". Please don't let such false claims influence you.

I have complete trust that you'll look at the facts, and ignore the fulminating. - Tenebrae 15:23, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

You've Said Your Piece, Let KOS Handle This

• If the "minor" villain is important enough to be listed on the entry, then it is worth noting why Daredevil is able to resist his powers. I understand that maybe you might not be familiar with Purple Man (who is "minor" enough to have shown up recently in Alias, Thunderbolts, among others), but Daredevil's willpower is an essential piece of their relationship. Although none of this has anything to do with the fact that you deleted repeated attempts to clarify the DD entry.
• The cover read "Daredevil And The Black Widow". Each issue featured both characters prominently. The entire focus of the series changed to have Matt Murdock move to San Francisco to be with the Black Widow. They teamed up in every issue to fight villains. This qualifies as a double-billing. [1]
• The concept of implication seems to completely escape you. Let me ask you something, why did Nocenti leave the title? Here's her own words:

Richard Meyer: I'd like to know the reasons you left the comic?

Ann Nocenti: ...Think of it as a mercy killing.

That hardly sounds especially stable. Again, in her own words:

I wrote with a "last meal on death row" mentality.

Lastly, in the words of assistant editor Marc Siry:

She was clearly very creative, but had less concern with the history of the characters - that's where she and Ralph usually came into conflict. Ralph [Machio] would often complain to Ann that she was making the characters react in "uncharacteristic" ways.

Do you finally understand what I am saying now? She was even in constant conflict with her editor! Stable implies a great deal about the book, and certainly implies that there was not constant fighting behind the scenes. Read the rest of the Nocenti interview. Look at how many times people brought the fact that she was a writer loved by some, hated by others. Look at the responses that deal with people writing in to Marvel pleading that she leave the book.

Stable does not mean long! A house that has been standing for 400 years that is ready to fall over at a strong wind is not stable! You quote the dictionary without understanding what it means.

• I never, ever, said you did. Again, any attempts at levity are clearly beyond you.

Please just let KOS do his (volunteered) job now. You've said your piece many, many times. I trust he has enough to go on, and I really don't want to devolve this page into another long, drawn-out point/counterpoint argument. Thank you. GodzillaWax 16:31, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Suggestions, comments and a final solution

I agree, this does not need to turn into a debate :-). I'm very glad to see you both have responded. After reading everything I could find that seems relevant to this dispute, I think I can say that the two of you really seem to care about the article in question. I think now would be a good time, to offer advice/solutions for this dispute. Please both of you feel free to make suggestions as well. Just be sure that if you leave advice for one an other, that it is civil, and true. Likewise, if you have advice directed at you don't take offense at it, instead try and use it. It might prove helpful.

• GodzillaWax and Tenebrae; you both have shown me points where you have tried to work together. It seems to me that they have been misconstrued grossly. The best advice I or any other editor could give you, is a) take a short break from the article and let your emotions calm down. b) Try try again. Advice I think everyone has been given before, keep trying to get along, it can get frustrating if your attempts fail. But you can take solace in the fact that you know the other editor not only wants to try and make peace and work together, but also that they are willing to. Now I hope you both understand that I am not here to make a judgment on the article. I am not here to decide who is right or wrong. My job as mediator is, to help the two of you learn to work together, so that you both may work in peace to help make the article the best it can be. KnowledgeOfSelf 17:17, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

None of the quotes that User:GodzillaWax gives re: Nocenti's run appear in the article as footnotes or anything else; I'd be curious for a fuller context, but that seems fair enough.

If GodzillaWax would be willing to put a full, contextual, sourced footnote of this sort in, I'd be perfectly happy to leave the section, as it is, alone. Does anyone think this isn't a reasonable compromise?

Aside from that immediate issue — which is the crux of this mediation and, with my suggestion, hopefully done with — I'd like to know what can be done to end the snideness of GodzillaWax's comments on the History Pages and elsewhere. He keeps defending his incivility with more incivility — "any attempts at levity are clearly beyond you" was completely unnecessary. I've been paid for humor writing for major national magazines and newspapers fact, which I say only to suggest this with some authority: Maybe GodillaWax should consider that his attempts at levity fail.

They're not funny. They're inappropriate at the least, and offensive at the most. He even does it here. I would like to know what to do, or where to go on Wiki, to make him stop. — Tenebrae 19:06, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I'd be happy to add some sources. As for Tenebrae not appreciating my humor -> well there's no accounting for taste. I would however like to confront the issue that Tenebrae keeps insulting me. Today he called me homophobic, insulting and "at a new low" for no good reason. I've also unearthed that he's gone to other peoples pages trying to recruit help for "dealing" with me, (Please see Tverbeek's talk page) wherein he resorts to massive profantiy and calling someone a "Pompous, ignorant ass" for failing to join his crusade. I don't understand why he keeps insulting me. GodzillaWax 22:13, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

For persepctive, Tverbeek had made insulting posts toward me. And, since GodzillaWax is as selective as always in his facts, I apologized to Tverbeek and he has not made further insulting posts, so he and I are fine. GodzillaWax, on the other hand, has apparently begun Wikistallking me. - Tenebrae 22:28, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

• I feel now is the most crucial time to intervene in this matter. This constant bickering on this page, and each others talk pages needs to stop. It does nothing to help this quest for mediation; it does nothing to help the article in question. It does nothing to help Wikipedia. The only thing this is doing is prompting more anger out of the both of you, I strongly suggest that you both stop and let the past pass. You know a sincere apology can go a long way, in helping a dispute. KnowledgeOfSelf 00:07, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Your words have the ring of truth, and so I'd like to suggest something audacious but fair: Block both GodzillaWax and myself for an equal amount of time — a forced cooling-off period, as it were, and depending on the amount of time involved, an equitable "punishment fits the crime" for all the time and trouble our back-and-forth has involved. I'm perfectly willing to shoulder my share of this escalation if this applies to the other party as well. I'm serious: It might be just the thing. What do you think, KOS? — Tenebrae 17:05, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

• That is an admirable suggestion Tenebrae, but I don't think it is needed at this time. KnowledgeOfSelf 01:03, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

• I don't agree to a cooling down period- I don't have that much time to work on this page, I don't want to be blocked from it in the time that I can. I think we both have a lot of good input to add to the page. Heres what I suggest:
• A lot of Tenebrae's input surrounds historical context and creator contributions.
• A lot of my input surrounds character and plot developments.
• Since its already been discussed that the page is going to have a Publication History segment and a Character Biography segment, why doesnt Tenebrae just stick to the former and Ill work on the latter for a while. That way were both contributing to the same page at the same time without stepping on each others toes. This way we can get the whole feeling of community development going and learn to respect the others changes.
• If theres a problem one of has with the others edits, then that person goes to the Talk page and discusses it. No more name calling, no more trying to recruit others in an attack on the other, no more warnings of harassment, etc (im saying that with regards to both of us).

Sound good? GodzillaWax 20:32, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

• While I don't think a block is an option yet, I do strongly believe it will be if the uncivil, belaboring comments continue. GodzillaWax, that is a great idea, if anything happens that either one of you disagree with do not make personal attacks, or uncivil comments, and if I may make one suggestion: do not edit each other’s work even if it is wrong in your eyes. Let an other editor bring it up, or in a very calm manner with no hint of malice, bring it up to each other nicely and make a valid point as to why you think it is wrong. I know that can be difficult when you are in the middle of a dispute, so if you don't feel you can say something nice, don't say anything at all! :) KnowledgeOfSelf 01:03, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

• Don't touch each other's edits, and generally let another editor bring something up? That certainly works for me. Moreover, I'd like to take User:GodzillaWax up on his offer -- I'll work on Publication and not touch Character Bio. Civility reigns. We good? -- Tenebrae 22:30, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Resolution

This is hopefully the final amendment with this dispute. Over the past week or so, there appears to be magnificent improvements not only with both users holding up to the temporary solution, but also with regards to the civility that has been shown. Most significantly this post at Tenebrae's talk page. That is ideally how Wikipedians should discuss changes to an other editors work. I commend the maturity that both GodzillaWax and Tenebrae have shown. The final resolution is very simple: Be civil at all times, because cooler heads always prevail. Stick with your area of interest and expertise! That doesn't mean you can never make an edit or change to an other area, it just means that you should assume that the other editor might know more about a certain subject than you do. So always discuss major changes first. If the other editor is not around, you should be able to make the change without fear of being on the brunt end of belaboring remarks. So make the changes but follow the above example posted by GodzillaWax at Tenebrae's talk page, always show courtesy, and let each other know that you have made a change, and that you are open to discussing it further. That is how all editing should be done by Wikipedians. This is an encyclopedia, and the beauty is; it's a collaborative effort!

To conclude, if you both agree with the above resolution, please sign your name below, and this case can be officially closed! If you see a problem, or need clarification do not hesitate to discuss any changes that you would like to see made. Please keep in mind that just like editing an article, any proposed changes to the above resolution, should be done in a compromising manner. If you work together a lot can and will be accomplished! KnowledgeOfSelf 23:46, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

1. - GodzillaWax 12:35, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
2. - Tenebrae 20:13, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I know I speak for both GodzillaWax and myself when I say thank you, KOS, for your immeasurable patience and understanding throughout this process. In the end, GW and I are both better editors for it. With thanks, Tenebrae 20:13, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Closed

BRAVO! Amazing work by KnowledgeOfSelf, and commendible effort towards resolution by the parties. I'm elated to see an excellent resolution to the dispute. <round of applause>.

This mediation is officially closed as a successful resolution of the dispute. The parties are welcome to request reactiviation if needed.

For the Mediation Committee, Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 11:05, 6 March 2006 (UTC)