Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Asgardian

Case Opened on 03:20, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Case Closed on 07:16, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Case amended by motion on 14:47, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Watchlist all case pages: [/index.php?title=&action=watch 1], [/index.php?title=/Evidence&action=watch 2], [/index.php?title=/Workshop&action=watch 3], [/index.php?title=/Proposed_decision&action=watch 4]

Please do not edit this page directly unless you are either 1) an Arbitrator, 2) an Arbitration Clerk, or 3) adding yourself to this case. Statements on this page are original comments provided when the Committee was initially requested to Arbitrate this page (at Requests for arbitration), and serve as opening statements; as such, they should not be altered. Any evidence you wish to provide to the Arbitrators should go on the /Evidence subpage.

Arbitrators, the parties, and other editors may suggest proposed principles, findings, and remedies at /Workshop. That page may also be used for general comments on the evidence. Arbitrators will then vote on a final decision in the case at /Proposed decision.

Once the case is closed, editors may add to the as needed, but this page should not be edited otherwise. Please raise any questions at Requests for arbitration, and report violations of remedies at Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement.

Involved parties

 * , filing party


 * Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request


 * Asgardian
 * BOZ
 * Tenebrae


 * Confirmation that other steps in dispute  resolution have been  tried


 * Requests for arbitration/Asgardian-Tenebrae
 * Requests for comment/Asgardian
 * Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Asgardian

Statement by Nightscream
Over the past few years, many members of the community have attempted unsuccessfully  to resolve the issue of User:Asgardian's serial violations of WP:OWN, WP:WAR,  WP:ES, WP:CONSENSUS,  WP:EDSUM, WP:SOCK,  WP:POINT, and WP:CIVIL,  and his use of WP:GAME-type behavior when said community  attempts to address these offenses. His refusal to respond in an honest or civil manner during these attempts at resolution, most recently  during his RfC, make it clear that the only way  to prevent future abuse by him is to ban him permanently from Wikipedia. While I would not be averse to allowing him to return in say, a year, I would only favor this if he openly discusses the inappropriate nature  of the behavior I have described here, directly answer questions about  it, and agree to abandon that behavior, sincerely, and without further  evasion. Barring this, he should be permanently blocked from editing. Evidence of his policy violations, both during edit disputes, and when his behavior is called into question, is copious, and will be furnished  by me (and presumably others) when the case is opened.

Response by Asgardian
I'll respond here with an insert as I wasn't sure where to post.

I have to say that I find this development baffling and unfortunate. Nightscream would seem to have issue with the fact that the Requests for comment/Asgardian didn't go the way he intended. In fact, I can simply address his very general and non-specific points  raised above by asking all to refer to the Requests  for comment/Asgardian,  where I was also supported by one editor in particular (Scott Free, who noted that there was an  element of "gangpiling" .  The RFC also shows examples of some of the issues I have had to deal  with in regards to some of the more inexperienced editors.

Further to this, Nightscream persisted at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Asgardian, but the focus has become about  him and his conduct, which seems to be a driving desire to see myself  somehow "punished". This is highlighted here, where WhatamIdoing states

"Nightscream, I'm finding that your comment above:  "You don't remove them against policy, find a source months later, and then say it 'resolves'  the issue. It may resolve the the need for sources, but that does not mean that it resolves the issue of an editor violating policy months  prior..."
 * is fairly telling.
 * First, anything that's well and truly resolved in the mainspace really is entirely resolved as far as building  the encyclopedia is concerned (i.e., why we're all here, right?).   Apologies and self-abasement  and promises to do better and so forth about the imperfect  process don't change  either a jot or a tittle in the mainspace.
 * It seems to me that if you (and others) didn't have such a fraught history with  Asgardian, then this incident really would have been "resolved" as soon  as a source was produced.  The fact that you want something more to be  done, while  acknowledging that there is nothing else to be done in the mainspace on that point, indicates to me the  depth of the interpersonal dysfunction."

This whole section    seems to have become about trying to educate Nightscream (who is an  administrator) about Wikipedia. As I noted in the Requests for comment/Asgardian, I don't understand the intensity of Nightscream's claims given that we have not edited together on the  same article -  Red Hulk  - for  months. What makes this even more bizarre is that Nightscream actually supported me just days ago on an edit at Beyonce  Knowles ;  supported me on the relevant Talk Page   and then after I thanked him   for the support acknowledged the thanks:. This then begs the question, why is this request being introduced?

On an aside the Requests for arbitration/Asgardian-Tenebrae  was from 2007, and a great deal has changed this then, which I  indicated at the Requests for comment/Asgardian.

I've made peace with many of the editors I have disagreed with in the past (see Requests for comment/Asgardian), and am now collaborating with  many of them on other issues (eg.). I am also even now trying to compromise with a fairly inexperienced editor (who was also recently banned for attempting blind reversions  with a sockpuppet on my edits): ;    as opposed to just edit warring.

To conclude, I feel a request for a "permanent side-wide ban" is completely unnecessary; extreme and also  (sadly) smacks of a grudge. I am also concerned about the fact that Nightscream has unilaterally chosen to speak for Tenebrae and BOZ  - listed  above -  without actually waiting to see if they wish to participate.

I bear Nightscream no ill will and would just like to see this resolved. I enjoy editing, and have made many, many productive edits in recent  years (a very recent example being the many hours I've put in here,  as the sources can only be of benefit).

For your consideration Asgardian (talk) 04:14, 14 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Addendum: Unfortunately, Nightscream's assertion that there are "18 long-tenured editors  who wrote or endorsed summaries against him (8 of which are  administrators)" actually doesn't paint the whole picture. Many of these  editors are very inexperienced and/or have been cautioned or blocked  and one had admitted that his level of experience in these matters is  limited (and that's nothing I hold against said person, who has been  very fair and is simply trying to keep the peace). I touch on this at  the Requests for comment/Asgardian. Almost everything presented is  in regards to the distant past, and in recent times there has only been  any real conflict with two inexperienced editors, whose conduct I also  touched on. I've also tried to reach out to these two editors, and  hopefully reach some middle ground.

I am still, however, curious as to why there is a sudden request for a "permanent ban"  - or any kind of  sanction for that matter - given I have been making every effort to work with  others (numerous examples) and better articles (numerous articles). It goes back to my point about there being no "smoking gun", although  there still being an insistence (see my earlier comments with the link)  for something to be done. I am also concerned about what Scott Free called "gangpiling"  over perceived - and not necessarily actual - issues. This is the third attempt for a sanction against myself, and it is becoming  rather stressful. I'm happy to provide information to independent parties, or alternatively, simply do so if this is adjourned to the Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Asgardian which has not closed.


 * Something I should also add is something like 90% of the time my edits are  unchallenged. I now avoid edit warring as much as is possible, and  actively seek solutions to issues.

For your consideration Asgardian (talk) 11:38, 15 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Nightscream also claims there was a refusal by myself to respond in "an honest or civil manner during these attempts  at resolution." Where is the proof for this allegation? I have provided  examples of willingness to work with others at Requests for comment/Asgardianand have participated in the  process since commencement. How is this dishonest or uncivil? Asgardian (talk) 04:56, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

For your consideration Asgardian (talk) 11:38, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Response to Statement by BOZ

 * I'd like to respond to BOZ's comments. He had been a voice  of reason throughout this entire process, and I thank him for his kind  words and impartiality. I acknowledged BOZ   had a point when discussing editing issues, and also admitted fault for  previous mishaps (albeit from some time ago) at Requests for comment/Asgardian. As I said above, these days  there is really only conflict when dealing with inexperienced editors. I pointed this out to BOZ, and he  agreed : .  Scott Free  also supports this view   and stated:

"In a way it's understandable that Asg. gets complaints; because he gets his feet wet and does add a lot of content  to articles, but they're usually not major articles, and they don't  necessarily have a lot of traffic."

That said, while 90% of what I edit is a non-issue,  I do require assistance with the other 10% from time to time. There were issues with one editor at Juggernaut  who was making blind reverts, but thanks to the assistance of two other  editors we've reached a nice compromise, which hopefully everyone will  endorse, thereby ending the issue.

The only other burning issue is getting some assistance from time to time  with DavidA. Being completely honest, it is more likely I will have conflict with this person more than any other  due to his conduct (which in fact I have just had to report at  Wikiquette   and the fact that he makes blind reverts and wipes valid information .  This is where the only real edit warring involving myself occurs, and  not by choice. Perhaps the best thing to do in future is just ask for  3rd party opinions on the relevant Talk Pages.

I probably should have done this all along (a lession I've just learned when dealing with  inexperienced editors who are more fans than "Wiki scholars", such as at  Beyonce Knowles,  where several editors backed a poorly worded paragraph with the wrong  focus and made a few threats). I'd also be receptive to the idea of BOZ mediating/mentoring when this person is involved, although of course he  may not wish to. DavidA's contributions also appear to be dropping away so it may be a non-issue  over time.

I'm also open to the idea of a mentor, which shouldn't be a demanding role given that most of the time few have issue  with my contributions as they have only bettered the articles. Asgardian (talk) 04:56, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Additional information
BOZ and I seem to have had a meeting of the minds on the mentor issue, although I am  apprehensive about the examples of conflict he lists.

Although I am happy to take full responsibility for past edits from 2007 and 2008  (although I think even then there was a degree of "gangpiling"), I would  like to state that this was  2007 -  2008, which is now sometime ago. Much has changed since then and I actively attempt solutions to issues, such as on the aforementioned  mentioned article Juggernaut, which looks to have been  resolved nicely. If there is even a hint of a potential conflict, I now report it to another senior user so that that it can be monitored. Please also note although I still have some issues with David A's editing style, I continue to try and discuss and offer compromises rather than blindly revert.

Had it been 2007, I would have probably been stubborn and kept reverting - a la Vision: and at the time it was appropriate for an administrator to  block both DrBat and myself for a time. Not so now. I fully accept articles need to adhere to a style format and that there is a way to get things done.

Regarding the BOZ examples, I don't see that as being necessary given a good resolution was reached  at Juggernaut; that I recently co-collaborated and improved Thor and admitted I made a factual  mistake   and am supportive of a new development  ;  actually tried to be the voice of reason between other parties during a hours-long edit war at  Galactus    and do little more than polite tweaks at present to the mentioned Ms. Marvel  article. The days when anyone's edits are "dismissively removed" as BOZ puts it are long behind me. That said, I have taken serious note of the fact that he feels this way.

I will say too that I have noticed that it appears to be some of the Marvel Comics articles that are points of  contention (and not just those involving myself): the revamps I conduct  on DC Comics  articles (eg. Amazo;  Johnny Sorrow;  Starbreaker)  seem to go largely unnoticed. I can only assume that many of the younger less experienced editors gravitate to the flashier, more high  profile characters. There's definately some "cause and effect" when Marvel Comics tout a character as being the star of an upcoming  storyline, as the page receives more hits and therefore the potential  for conflict increases. That said, I enjoy editing articles about characters from both companies. I'd be happy to continue to flag any potential issues somewhere more formal such as  WikiProject Comics for more discussion.

Finally, I am still concerned about Nightscream's view that I be "punished"  somehow. I noted this post, which I found to be emotive and disappointing, as it states it is a character issue. This is not true. I respect Wikipedia and my fellow editors, and wish to continue editing. I have admitted fault and will accept criticism, but not attacks.

In this vein, I am still happy to work with BOZ, who has shown a great deal  of consideration and while expressing concern has also shown respect. Irrespective of the outcome here, I appreciate this.

For your consideration Asgardian (talk) 06:04, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Statement by BOZ
It's been brought up by a few people that maybe this case should have gone to WP:AN/I first. I think I understand why Nightscream came to ArbCom instead of AN/I; Asgardian has been the  subject of numerous Admin noticeboard threads already: Oct 26, 2006, Dec 10, 2006, Jan 14, 2007, Mar 18, 2007, Mar 24, 2007 (named party only), May 2, 2007,  May 21, 2007, Jun 16, 2007, Jun 22, 2007, Jul 6, 2007,  Jul 24, 2007, Dec 27, 2007, Jan 7, 2008,  Feb 13, 2009, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive561#Admin_button_misuse_in_edit_war. Sep 2, 2009] (named party only), Sep 4, 2009,  Oct 8, 2009,  and  Jan 3, 2010. I'm assuming we've been down that road plenty of times already, but if it's ArbCom's decision that AN/I is the way to go, then I will have to  recommend that Nightscream approach from that angle.

As to this case, I know that more than one person besides Nightscream has sought an  indefinite block on Asgardian before; I don't personally see that he  has done anything to earn such a block, but I can see why "getting him  out of one's hair" would have an appeal. As a pure content editor on comic book character articles, Asgardian is tough to match. But, then there are those other concerns brought up in his current RFC/U, and that  makes one wonder whether his contributions outweigh the disputes he so  often finds himself in. However, I will not weigh the merits of placing any type of block on Asgardian, as that is something I am not concerned  with.

I made a suggestion not long ago (I forget to whom, and when) that perhaps the best way to deal with all the problems that have  arisen over Asgardian and other editors interacting badly is to approach  ArbCom to seek a sort of mentorship for Asgardian, to help him out when  he finds himself in dispute with other editors. This might take the work of more than one experienced, uninvolved editor (who had best be  well prepared before wading into this situation!), who knows the dispute  resolution system well and can keep an eye out for disputes when they  arise, and point him and the other editors in the right direction. I don't know how practical, or even possible, such an arrangement is, but  I'd like to consider adding that to the table as an alternative on the  indefinite block proposal. If this arrangement is attempted and does not work, then I assume we come back here looking for some long-term blocks, or  appropriate topic bans. BOZ (talk) 06:26, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I would like to clarify that I am definitely not opposing, nor supporting any type of  block or ban -  I am neutral on that idea, and leave that up to the wisdom of others.  My suggestion is merely that; if Asgardian is not  to be put on long-term  block, then what I mention above is what I would like to see. BOZ (talk)  12:38, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

To be coupled with my above suggestion, as a mentor alone may be inadequate to deal with all the disputes that arise, I  would like to propose that several long-term topic bans be considered on  articles where Asgardian's editing has been the most contentious. Looking at his top namespace edits, you'll find several articles with over a hundred edits each. Whereas many of these edits are likely to have been productive ones, many of them undoubtedly consist wholly of  reverting (fully or in part) to his prior version. I think an examination of the articles in this list will reveal the most  contentious examples.

Asgardian, I feel, does his best work on the articles of less popular comic book characters - they are rarely  edited by anyone else, and he can do a good job without getting into a  dispute with anyone. Articles such as Thor, Galactus,  Ms. Marvel,  and Juggernaut, to come up with examples off the  top of my head, are another story. I think it would be good for him to focus on articles on which he has not had a long history of fighting  over content. I find that I am not alone in giving up editing "Asgardian's articles", echoing Peregrine Fisher's comments below,  because it is frustrating to try to edit when it feels like most of your  contributions to an article will be dismissively removed. BOZ (talk) 16:15, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Clerk notes

 * This area is used for notes by non-recused Clerks.

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (5/0/0/4)

 * Awaiting statements. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:42, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: couldn't this be handled at AN/I?   Roger Davies  talk 07:39, 14 February  2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - Awaiting  further statements, and any clear explanation for why this can't be  dealt with at ANI will be welcome.  However, I'm leery of rejecting  cases by in effect telling the community to ban somebody.  I also  changed the heading of this case to something more neutral. Steve Smith (talk) 00:41, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment It is not general ArbCom policy to enact "permanent" bans as a result of Arbitration cases, other then  under special circumstances. The usual maximum remedy enacted is a one  year site ban. If a permanent ban is desired, AN/I may be better.  Looking at the information, however, I would tenatively lean towards  accepting the case should it be pushed forward. SirFozzie (talk) 09:14, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Accept to examine user conduct.  — Rlevse  •  Talk  •  11:02, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Accept unless of course the decision is made to take the matter back to the  community (who might be able to sort this actually). Shell   babelfish  04:58, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Accept. Kirill [talk] [prof]  05:11, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Accept - After  looking at the AN* threads presented by BOZ, I am convinced that we need  to get involved. KnightLago (talk) 18:29, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Accept; this many AN/I threads is indicative of a serious problem that needs examination.   &mdash; Coren (talk)  00:51, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Temporary injunction (none)
=Final decision=

Edit warring is prohibited
1) Edit-warring, whether by reversion or otherwise, is prohibited; this includes slow-moving disputes that would not ordinarily fall under the three-revert rule.


 * Passed 10 to 0, 07:14, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Editorial process
2) Wikipedia works by building consensus through the use of polite discussion—involving the wider community, if necessary—and dispute resolution, rather than through disruptive editing. Editors are each responsible for noticing when a debate is escalating into an edit war, and for helping the debate move to better approaches by discussing their differences rationally. Sustained editorial conflict is not an appropriate method of resolving disputes.


 * Passed 10 to 0, 07:14, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Article ownership
3) Editorial control over a Wikipedia article is vested in the editing community as a whole, rather than in any one editor; editors are expected to resolve disagreements through consensus within Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.


 * Passed 9 to 0, 07:14, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Edit summaries
4) Editors are expected to use edit summaries to make it easy for other editors to see what is being done with an article. Leaving the edit summary field blank is undesirable, and using it to mislead as to the substance of one's edits is prohibited.


 * Passed 10 to 0, 07:14, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Editor decorum
5) Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users; to approach even difficult situations in a dignified fashion and with a constructive and collaborative outlook; and to avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. In content disputes, editors should comment on the content and not the contributor. Personalising content disputes disrupts the consensus-building process on which Wikipedia depends. Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, and assumptions of bad faith, is prohibited.


 * Passed 10 to 0, 07:14, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Recidivism
6) Users who have been sanctioned for improper conduct are expected to avoid repeating it should they continue to participate in the project. Failure to do so may lead to the imposition of increasingly severe sanctions.


 * Passed 10 to 0, 07:14, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Past case
1) was the subject of a 2007 arbitration case, which resulted in a yearlong editing restriction due to sustained edit-warring. Since that case, he has been blocked on multiple occassions  for edit-warring. Asgardian was also the subject of a December 2009 request for comment, which led to this arbitration case.


 * Passed 10 to 0, 07:14, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Edit-warring
2) Since 2007, Asgardian has continued to engage in sustained edit-warring across multiple articles. The edit-warring has continued during this case.


 * Passed 10 to 0, 07:14, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Edit summaries
3) Asgardian has used edit summaries that do not accurately or wholly sum up his edits, or failed to use edit summaries while making controversial edits.


 * Passed 10 to 0, 07:14, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Incivility
4) Asgardian has made uncivil remarks, including commenting on other editors, instead of content.


 * Passed 9 to 1, 07:14, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

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.

Asgardian banned
1) Asgardian is banned from Wikipedia for one year.


 * Passed 9 to 1, 07:14, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Motion: Asgardian (September 2015)
The topic ban from Marvel Comics portion of Asgardian's unblock condition is suspended for a period of one year. During the period of suspension, this topic ban may be reinstated by any uninvolved administrator as an arbitration enforcement action should fail to adhere to Wikipedia editing standards in the area previously covered by the topic ban. Appeal of such a reinstatement would follow the normal arbitration enforcement appeals process. After one year from the date of passage of this motion, if the topic ban has not been reinstated or any reinstatements have been successfully appealed, the topic ban will be lifted.
 * Passed 7 to 0 by motion at 14:47, 28 September 2015 (UTC)