Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Asgardian/Evidence

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

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

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

Arbitrators may analyze evidence and other assertions at /Workshop. /Workshop provides for comment by parties and others as well as Arbitrators. After arriving at proposed principles, findings of fact or remedies, Arbitrators vote at /Proposed  decision. Only Arbitrators (and clerks, when clarification on votes is needed) may edit  the proposed decision page.

Evidence presented by Tenebrae
To this detailed page of evidence here, I now add a summary.

I've had some of the longest dealings with Asgardian. Some have been good, but most have been contentious and marked by what I've found to be disingenuousness and smokescreening. Some of his comments here are his only admissions that his own behavior may play a part in his difficulties with many editors.

However: I also see here his tendency at rhetorical misdirection. Example: Despite his claims his disagreements are usually with inexperienced editors, he has frequent contentious dealings with many long-experienced, responsible veterans. He rationalizes that other editors have grudges, are being "emotive," or are ganging up on him for vague, nefarious reasons that, when we ask what he thinks those reasons are, he refuses to say. Nothing's his fault; it's everyone else's.

His ownership tendency is pronounced, as when he claims his edits are "Wiki-correct". More serious is his insistence that his own personal house style trumps the consensus-derived WikiProject Comics MOS. This appears consistently, year after year, ranging from picayune (abbreviating long months his own way, even after being asked repeatedly not to) to the major (mashing together the Project's two distinct article-sections &mdash; the past-tense-using, real-world "Publication history" and the present-tense, make-believe "Fictional character biography").

When editors apply formal pressure, as now, he becomes collaborative for a time. When he was on probation for a year and not allowed to revert more than once in a certain time period, things were better. But when that year ended, all the old troubles/behavior restarted. He is exhausting us. Many veteran editors believe he won't change in any long-term way.

I had suggested an admin mentor who could encourage collaboration and collegiality and,l more importantly, be someone to whom editors could turn during edit wars...who could step in and, if needed, temporarily spot-block Asgardian for the greater good. If no such volunteer is available, then, with sadness for a talented person given to self-destructive tendencies poisoning the Project, I regretfully advocate large-scale action. It's neither right nor fair that one person, year after year, sponges up so much time and energy from so many other volunteers.

I truly hate to be suggesting such action. But we're at the end of our rope. We've tried repeatedly. We don't know what else to do. All this contentiousness makes the Project a hard place to be, and the huge amount of work and time that's gone into the RfCU (link above) is a testament to that.-- Tenebrae (talk) 05:01, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Response to Asgardian claims/allegations
Asgardian points to a 2007 post of mine &mdash; perfectly factual, but of limited relevance to 2010.

Secondly, he only proves my point when I say he blames everyone but himself: I hold no personal grudge or vendetta. I think the sad, not angry, tone of my comments above indicate this.

As to the discussion I have "yet to contribute to - on revising a Style term," that discussion ended Feb. 14, with several editors in disagreement with Asgardian and no change made to Project MOS. -- Tenebrae (talk) 21:54, 23 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I hate to become involved in a he said/he said, but as Asgardian refers to me directly, I must respond. His tendency to use distortions is evident again in his false claim I said posts from 2007 were "null and void"; I said "of limited relevance to 2010." As to the MOS discussion: Asgardian unilaterally changed the consensus-derived subhead "Fictional character biography" to "Biography" in contradiction to the MOS. The discussion went against his efforts. The MOS stands.


 * In any event, this ArbCom is about Asgardian's behavior, as documented on the Evidence page linked to in my post above, to which many editors contributed. His attempts to turn this personal are a diversion from the facts.-- Tenebrae (talk) 00:09, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Response to "Proposed Solution", and a proposal
Having someone "check in" once a month for six months would be of no help. His frequent edit-warring, constant bad-faith accusations of imaginary "grudges" and "vendettas" and his consistent attempts at misdirection and smokescreening have poisoned the well (which, to address any Asgardian claim of being "emotive," is a standard U.S. legal term).

His fellow editors need a "probation officer" admin to whom they can turn, who has veto power over Asgardian's disputed edits and unilateral changes to MOS. Additionally, we need a reinstatement of his old probation, in which he could make only one rv (either via "Undo" or by a multitude of edits essentially comprising an rv) a day. That probation lasted a year; as his behavior did not change, bringing us to this point, this reinstatement should last two years.

Given that at least one other editor is calling for a ban, this seems a less drastic and more productive solution. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:19, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * In response to Asgardian re: solutions: His edit-warring only stopped when an RfCU began, after multiple editors felt there was no other option.


 * Given the years of his behavior, a monthly "check-in" ending after six months is less of a sanction than his previous year-long, anti-revert probation. If something as stringent as that produced no lasting change, a weaker, six-month "check-in" program will do no good. --Tenebrae (talk) 04:30, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Asgardian's reply to BOZ ("I still maintain some may be intimidated by my level of comic knowledge") is so off-the-mark I can find no other phrase but "self-deluded."


 * A second point: Asgardian's repeated digging to 2007 for a posting of mine only confirms these issues have been recurring for years. At that time, I proposed a ban. While I don't now, other editors are. :When editors consider something as extreme as banning, it'd seem that agreeing to something in-between banning and the too-light "check-in" would be a fair compromise. Asgardian doesn't help his case by pointing out how many years he has been fighting many editors. -- Tenebrae (talk) 07:35, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Evidence provided by Asgardian
As with Nightscream, Tenebrae appears to be holding a grudge. Demonstrated here ; where during a past conversation Tenebrae creates a section with an emotive heading. Editors express concern regarding the "hyperbole" in Tenebrae's comments, and one editor suggests he has a break from Wikipedia,  stating that "I'm thinking it's time you take a break, Tenebrae. Your  comments here show something bordering on a personal vendetta  (It is time to ban Asgardian from WikiProject Comics at the very least,  and I will investigate whatever process it takes.)" (see   for full script).

Comments in Evidence also echo this: "But we're at the end of our rope. We've tried and tried. We don't know what else to do." Who is Tenebrae speaking for when makes these allegations? I can also safely state that I do not have "self-destructive tendencies" and nor am I "poisoning the Comics Project." There are no facts here.

As to actual evidence, Tenebrae links to weak points  already refuted above in the many links provided.

Maintenance tags issue dealt with, and another user gives instruction to Nightscream regarding this :. The ownership issue is addressed: ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Asgardian#Part_One}).

Recent examples of my following the MOS: adding a "Publication history" to articles  and participating in a discussion on  revising a Style term ("Fictional character biography") -. As to the claim of "abbreviating the long months his own way..." that is disproven here, where I instruct another editor on correct procedure.

Finally, please note in my Opening Comments   some examples of my collaboration with other editors, including this thanks from another user   who initially expressed concern. A victory for teamwork!

I now know that the smart course of action to take when editors blindly revert is not to retaliate, but to seek further comment from more experienced editors.

Asgardian (talk) 03:45, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Response to Tenebrae's latest comments & DavidA
The claim regarding MOS is false. As can be seen here, several editors offer up suggestions, with no one blatently disgreeing with anyone. The discussion evolves in a natural, organic fashion. Asgardian (talk) 03:21, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * David A has simply rehashed information that was refuted with strong evidence here ; . Unfortunately DavidA is one of the three editors who have made this personal:

''Yes, can someone PLEASE PLEASE get Asgardian permanently banned. His lies, censorship, manipulation and so forth is completely systematic and never ever stops... (etc) Dave (talk) 09:11, 26 October 2009 (UTC) (from )

and was cautioned for criticising me by name in the Edit Summary of an article I have in fact never worked on. I have also noticed that DavidA appears to have some facts wrong and has omitted details regarding civility. I have never edited the article Stewie Griffin!

The claim re: being a "troll" is false as the user was reprimanded and even recanted their statement. DavidA omits the fact that another editor disagreed with User:Duae Quartunciae and said I had a right to defend myself.

Asgardian (talk) 03:41, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Proposed solution
I would suggest that an independent 3rd party simply "check in" with myself, once a month for six months. This person reviews my Edit Summary, and if OK with it state as much on my Talk Page. If not, then they would have the right to ask questions about methodology. If this did not then resolve the issue, then action could be taken. This approach does not force someone to politely police edits on a daily basis, but helps maintain the "checks and balances." At the end of the six-month period, the person could report back and if advising that all is well, the matter is closed.

For your consideration. Asgardian (talk) 23:43, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Response to Nightscream
Nightscream's comments are unfortunately personal. The sheer length of the reply goes to the comment I posted on the main page of the case, in which WhatamIdoing also states it is personal.

I believe Nightscream did not appreciate being questioned about his use of a block on an article he was involved in and then blocking me (erroneously) lightly. Or the fact that this became about trying to educate Nightscream about Wikipedia.

The section of Nightscream's argument that distresses me is the Conclusion : "This is not a problem that can be addressed with “mentoring”, a “parole officer” or topic bans. Mentoring involves someone of experience providing advice or support to someone of lesser experience, often imparting some type of skill to them. But Asgardian’s problems have never been one of skill or experience. His problem is one of character. Deliberately lying, attacking people on a personal level who criticize you, making accusations that you refuse to elaborate on—these are acts of deliberate and calculating intent, and not ignorance or lack of skill.

This is inappropriate as Nightscream is judging me as a person and would seem to imply I have engaged in criminal conduct. I did not deserve this. It goes again to my assertion that this has become a vendetta. As BOZ states here, this is not a Nightscream decision, and I find it to be in very poor taste.

No one is the perfect poster child for Wikipedia. Many things have been said, and much of it comes down to interpretation. Wikpedia is far from black and white. That said, there are guidelines, and several years ago, I was far more cavalier about these. Now I strive to follow them whenever possible. They are, however, only guidelines, and bold editing is allowed. How much is the question.

Evidence presented by User:David A
I will mostly repeat what I posted in the old RFC page, but will try to be somewhat more concise and updated.

My own ongoing annoyance mirrors Nightscream's in noticing the recurrent false concern and politeness dripping with venom and sarcasm, while at the same time doing his best to to be an ongoing bother. (I've had to deal with him for around two years now.)

Another is the constant regulation manipulation for personal benefit. For example in the Juggernaut edit-war stating "not to violate consensus and the spirit of the 3-revert rule" and that he has never done this, while simultaneously doing just that in Dormammu. Or making constant cases of "incivility" as an all-purpose shield against anyone who simply states exactly what he is doing, including instantly trying to get Tenebrae banned, even though the admins he contacted considered it ridiculous:

Another editor suggested that he does fall within the troll spectra, using "fear", and system manipulation as a weapon, which would fit with the ongoing satirical "system weakness illustrating" bent in his edits, provocations, and tone.

He has also made a great amount of extremely misleading edit-summaries, including the ones stating "No OHOTMU" as a validation for removing a considerably greater amount of references that had nothing to do with this at Dormammu, in conjunction with recurrently inserting or reinserting inaccurate information, or replacing word-by-word sourced information with unsourced summaries involving misleading personal opinion, but that was just a recent in a long line.

Yet another is that his word apparently cannot be trusted. If he gets a warning for deleting valid references to replace them with opinion, he will return at a time when interest has waned to do the same edit once more, and when we cut a deal that he should stop doing sweeping deletions and instead make compromise suggestion text reconfiguration attempts, if structure or accuracy was his actual aim, in return for myself treating him with benefit of doubt, for yet another chance to prove himself trustworthy, he almost immediately diverted from it, despite that I continued for a few weeks. After the RFC Page was created he finally started to compromise in the manner I wanted, and recently it was apparently solved through arbitration, but on previous/other occasions he has continued once he's talked himself out of it, or done the same reverts once interest has diffused.

Given that he has in fact been proven to use sockpuppets, I have sometimes suspected him to use temporary IP addresses when his own reverts have been enforced by such, but that may just be my personal paranoia speaking.

The reference-censoring also tended to have a very specific slant on heavily favouring certain characters and disfavouring others, but unless he is still using sockpuppets he has apparently turned better about this specific point.

Asgardian has had a few "civility" charges brought against him, and he did call me "shrieking, unbalanced, and unhinged" once, so I suppose in theory it could apply, but I don't really care much about that sort of thing, and think that it misses the main point: My own fundamental problem with him is that I cannot synchronise the idea of someone we know for a fact to be very dishonest (in a broader sense than Asgardian himself, i.e. including any calculated rather than accidental sockpuppet users who employ these to edit the same articles) to be allowed to edit something people rely on for accuracy. Asgardian generally goes to extremes in the other direction with complete incoherence between deliberately overstated smarmy manipulation, and dishonest actions. This has been highly annoying on several occasions, and he's also been underhanded enough to try to use my handicaps as a weapon. This is what I believe should be the main focus: As far as my experiences go, Asgardian is a completely unapologetic known deliberate serial-liar who is somehow allowed to edit an encyclopedia.

I'm inserting an old short link list if this is of any help:

This one mentions an edit-war on Red Hulk along with the ongoing "incivility defense";

This has J.Greb mention that he has also noticed the misleading edit-summaries, referring to this case:, along with Asgardian stating that he wll continue to do so as long as he gets away with it in the following edit;

This mentions edit-wars on Abomination and Rhino pages, as well as Stewie Griffin;

This mentions the ongoing problems with removing multiple valid references from Dormammu on false grounds; Here he can be seen just recently doing exactly the same thing over and over on Doctor Strange, despite Talk page clarifications.

User:Tcaudilllg states that Asgardian's tactics correspond to those of a troll, and in the same case User:Duae Quartunciae calls his manipulative use of regulations (to create either fear, or annoyance, such as later putting a complaint against Tenebrae) "self-serving" and warns him that he might get banned. The former would fit in with the old comment that Asgardian finds annoyance with manipulation funny, and that he admits to goading me to get easily linked quotes, in conjunction with threats of "shooting oneself in the foot";

And perhaps most high-profile, there was an extremely lengthy ongoing debate about that he appeared entirely willing to vandalise multiple pages just to make an exaggerated satirical point, and following talk about that he just keep sticking to (more sophisticated versions of) the same behaviour no matter how many chances he is given:  ;

His ban list should mention plenty of other cases, and he has received a lot of notices over the years without much true change beyond turning more subtle in the same approach. Dave (talk) 13:16, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Evidence presented by User:Nightscream
For three and a half years, Asgardian has persistently violated numerous policies such as WP:OWN, WP:WAR, WP:ES, WP:CONSENSUS, WP:EDSUM, WP:SOCK, WP:POINT, WP:CIVIL and WP:APR. These are covered by the numerous AN/I threads centering on him, his block log of 12 upheld blocks by 7 different administrators, his past Requests for Comment and Arbitrations, including the recent RfC, in which 18 editors, including 8 administrators, wrote or endorsed summaries documenting this. I will focus on the WP:GAME behavior that he exhibits in such disputes. Asgardian says on the case page that he’s “change". The evidence shows this is untrue, as this behavior has continued through the recent RfC, his edit disputes since then, and these arbitration pages.

Please see the complete presentation of evidence at Evidence presented by Nightscream.

There, I have presented Asgardian's WP:GAME tactics as a set of specific behaviors. Much of the behaviors shown by my evidence are described in WP:GAME. They include:


 * 1. Stonewalling.
 * 2. Use of various non sequiturs in response to criticism. These include:
 * Saying his edits are "not outrageous".
 * Dismissing the evidence and conclusions submitted by his critics as "subjective" or merely "opinion".
 * Pointing out that a given critics has not edited with him on an article in months.
 * 3. Use of personal attacks, such as ad hominem arguments and personal innuendo in response to criticism. (Arguably a more personal form of the previous behavior.) These include:
 * Accusing them of being "emotive", without providing evidence that shows this, and without invalidating the critic's assertion against him.
 * Accusing them of harboring a "grudge", again without falsifying the assertion against him, or even explaining why, if false or unfounded, it could not come from someone not holding a grudge, even in the light of evidence that would indicate the lack of such a bias (some of which Asgardian unwittingly provides himself).
 * Making vague allusions to his critics' editing history, and implying that merely having had previous edit conflicts with other editors in some way invalidates their assertions against him.
 * Bringing up aspects of his critics' personal lives, without indicating how they bear on the accusation at hand.
 * 4. Falsehoods, at least some of which that, when examined, are difficult to conclude as anything other than deliberate mendacity.
 * The easiest one of these to measure objectively, and as mendacity rather than error, is his recently discovered tactic of accusing his critics and other editors who disagree with him of being "less experienced" or even "inexperienced", and claiming that they have been blocked before.
 * 5. In each of these instances, I provide examples of statements on this part that clearly show him exhibiting the behavior he criticizes others for, or otherwise not adhering himself to the principles he cites when attacking others.

Conclusion Between his false assertions that editors who call attention to problems caused by him are less experienced than he is, to his dismissal of them as being fans rather than “Wiki scholars”, his assertion that others are intimidated by his level of knowledge, the way he lashes out and dismisses his critics, his invoking principles when attacking others that he doesn't adhere to himself, and his overall use of this behavior to facilitate imposing his personal aesthetics on articles to the exclusion of other viewpoints he disagrees with, the picture that emerges is that of a deep-seated narcissist who sees himself as occupying some sort of elevated position over all other members of the community and its policies, for whom sincere adherence to the collaborative process we all submit to is an annoyance, and to which occasional lip service is sufficient to avoid serious sanction.

This cannot be addressed with “mentoring”, a “parole officer” or topic bans. Mentoring involves someone of experience providing advice or support to someone of lesser experience, often imparting some type of skill to them. But Asgardian’s problems have never been one of skill or experience. His problem is one of character. Deliberately lying, attacking people on a personal level who criticize you, making accusations that you refuse to elaborate on—these are acts of deliberate and calculating intent, and not ignorance or lack of skill. A mentor cannot make someone honest who is knowingly and deliberately dishonest, at least unless the offender is willing to acknowledge the underlying problem. The same problem is present with the “parole officer” analogy, which not only implies that some “punishment” has been carried out, but that the offender has acknowledged his offenses. As for a topic ban, what would this do? How would a topic ban change his insults to other people? How would it address the issue of his habitual inability to be honest?

Because administrative actions are preventative, and not punitive, the only way to prevent persistence of this behavior is to block him permanently. If this committee resolves to apply yet another band-aid-on-a-bullet-wound solution, which in the past have either been violated by Asgardian or otherwise failed to cease his behavior, then it is certain that this behavior will continue. Should the block have the effect of convincing him that he has a problem, and the need to admit this, then I do not oppose him returning at some point, perhaps in a year, provided he directly answers questions posed to him regarding his behavior, in order to gauge his mindset with respect to principles of rational inquiry and good collaboration. But barring this, he should not be allowed to edit further.

I ask that all who wish to participate here read the RfC page, and its Talk Page, and closely examine all the evidence therein, as well as Asgardian’s overall history, such as his block log, past arbitrations, and AN/I’s. Look at all the people whose time and patience have been exhausted by his behavior. It is my position that an outsider cannot accurately grasp the pattern of his behavior with only a cursory glance at the issue’s history. Nightscream (talk) 11:32, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Evidence presented by BOZ
I don't really feel that I have any additional evidence at this time to present beyond what has been presented already, so I will instead summarize my role and position and reiterate some items.

As stated in the RFC/U regarding Asgardian, and corroborated by the users above, the problems regarding Asgardian have been ongoing for years. Formal dispute resolution was used sparingly in dealing with him, which in part allowed the situation to continue on ad nauseum. Page protection and short term blocks have proven largely ineffective. As seen elsewhere, there have been several threads regarding Asgardian posted to the various admin noticeboards; this is in addition to many past complaints on the WikiProject Comics talk page, Asgardian's talk page, the talk pages of other users, article talk pages, etc. Last autumn, there was such a thread on J Greb's talk page on which some of us administrators were discussing what to finally do about this situation: RFC or ArbCom. I ultimately got the impression that RFC would work better, at least as a first step, so I eventually volunteered to set one up.

I set up a page for others to post evidence on, which I then organized (and which the user formerly known as Ikip further organized, per Tenebrae's first link at the top of this page) and presented as an RFC. I neither sought nor presented any particular solutions, and endorsed no one else's statements, leaving it to my initial statements to present this case both for community discussion and as a place to gather all the complaints into one place. However, while the latter was achieved, the former was not - nearly everyone who responded to the RFC was someone who had been directly involved in a dispute with Asgardian in some manner. I had contacted most of them directly in the first place, and some whom I contacted offered no response or were unable to be reached.

I was always aware that the RFC was likely to lead to further formal dispute resolution, up to and including ArbCom. It was my hope that the RFC/U would lead to a significant change in behavior; although Asgardian feels positive that such a change has already occurred, I am disappointed to say I must admit that I do not see any such significant change. Asgardian has the potential to be a great content editor, but his approach often leads to confrontations with other users. The ownership behaviors he appears to exert over certain articles seem unlikely to change without intervention. If Asgardian is to get along well with his fellow editors, experienced or inexperienced, he must learn to collaborate with them in such a way that does not leave them feeling like their contributions are not needed, or that they have to fight to make any changes.

Not everything brought up as evidence has been particularly recent - in fact, some of it is from a few years ago. I feel that does not make these examples any less relevant; in fact, I feel there is instead a demonstrated pattern of similar behavior going on consistently for years. It is my feeling, therefore, that Asgardian should not be allowed to continue editing the way he has been without some form of restriction, and probably a strong one. What that may be, I do not know, but it should be something that allows for a method of enforcement with clear guidelines for admins dealing with the situation to follow should a situation occur/escalate. Additionally, there are accusations of other, more serious behavioral issues by other users, so if the ArbCom's decision is instead to ban or block him indefinitely or long-term, then I absolutely understand and respect that. BOZ (talk) 01:27, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Scott Free
This to add some observations on the general environment of the comic book project - it's a fairly tough environment - hard to arrive at consensus - here's an example (notice 3 users involved in the dispute againts Asg.) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Al_Williamson#Non-free_images

The discussion seems civil enough (although...), but here was the problem: a) I had put a dozen images in the article, with full fair use descriptions

b) one user suggests that the amount be cut down to 6 and specifies which ones to keep

c) I present a preamble comment, to see if there was some flexibility as to the amount of images to be kept and which ones

d) a second user agrees entirely with the first user's choices and makes those changes on the article

e) a third user voices their entire agreement with this choice.

Observations:

1- As far as I notice, my input was disregarded

2- The mathematical odds of 3 people being in complete agreement in the choice of 6 out of 12 possibilities are rather high to say the least

3- No real discussion of topic content or even specific policy and guidelines were put forth.

4- Faced with such rather surprising rigidness, I did not see the feasibiltiy of trying to pursue a discussion and let the matter go. Later attempts to replace one or two images were quickly reverted.

I'm not trying to make an issue of that situation, feel free to use the evidence at your discretion - my basic gist being that fair consensus building is not easy in the comics group and could stand some improving (although things have improved over a few years ago).

I presented a suggestion at the RFC:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Asgardian#Outside_view_by_Scott_Free

this being the template Underconstruction as the later part of the section (Extra Clarification) alludes to, Asg. did indeed use the template, but I am not sure that this was met with productive cooperation by certain opponents.

I think that one thing that this situation is lacking is neutral feedback - the two main adminstrators following the situation regularly colloborate with many of Asg.'s opponents - (I'm not saying that they behaved wrongly, indeed, I find the recent actions of requesting arbitration clarification and implementing n rfc to be good moves) - but it would be better if a completely uninvolved party were to give input.

For example, in the most neutral feedback IMO given on the rfc page, no major problems with Asg. were noticed and there was some criticism of his opponents (unfortunately it was removed - allusions to it can be found on the rfc talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Asgardian (outside view section)

With the hope that this case can bring a more civil, cooperative atmosphere to the comics project,

Sincerely,

--Scott Free (talk) 23:46, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

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

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

Evidence presented by {your user name}
before using the last evidence template, please make a copy for the next person

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

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