Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Asgardian/Workshop

This is a page for working on Arbitration decisions. The Arbitrators, parties to the case, and other editors may draft proposals and post them  to this page for review and comments. Proposals may include proposed general principles, findings of fact, remedies, and enforcement  provisions&mdash;the same format as is used in Arbitration Committee  decisions. The bottom of the page may be used for overall analysis of the /Evidence  and for general discussion of the case.

Any user may edit this workshop page. Please sign all suggestions and comments. Arbitrators will place proposed items they believe should be part of the final  decision on the /Proposed  decision page, which  only Arbitrators and clerks may edit, for voting, clarification as well  as implementation purposes.

Template
1)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Request to ArbCom to please throughly examine the proposal 2c. As it may present unintended problems to other Wikipedians. Cutno (talk) 03:02, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Template
2)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
3)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
2)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
3)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
4)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Questions to the parties
=Proposed final decision=

Ownership
1a) No one user should be the sole determiner of what content is allowed in an article, and how that content is presented. All users, unless otherwise restricted, are allowed to edit any article while acting in good faith.

1b) Undue possessiveness restricts the collaborative process. It is important to respect the work and ideas of other contributors, rather than disregard them.

1c) Superior knowledge of a topic does not entitle a user to control what content will be used on an article, and how it will be used.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * With all due respect to BOZ, and all the hard work he has done, these suggestions aren't really "proposals". They are merely restatements of policy. Putting aside the fact that Asgardian's dishonesty, his incivility toward others, and his manipulation of the process is not mentioned by BOZ, it does no good to regard abstinence from Ownership or Edit warring/Reverting as proposals, when the person on whom this arbitration is centered denies engaging in those activities recently, in clear contradiction of the evidence presented that he does. It is for this reason, as I pointed out in my conclusion on the Evidence Page, that suggestions like this are not useful, and if ratified as a solution, would serve only to ignore the true nature of the problem, and perpetuate it, as it has to date. Nightscream (talk) 17:09, 5 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Proposed remedies go in the section below the proposed principles. I haven't done any of those yet, and was kind of leaving that up to you to propose in a section of your own, below. BOZ (talk) 18:35, 5 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I apologize. I've never participated in one of these before, and am not sure how it works. Even looking over this page, I'm not sure what I'm supposed to put where. Anyone's assistance would be appreciated. Nightscream (talk) 01:51, 6 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * I think that passage of this proposal that includes 1b 1c would greatly enhance Wikipedia for the better. Cutno (talk) 01:59, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring and reverting
2a) A user should discuss good faith changes made by other users, rather than reverting to his or her preferred version of an article, in whole or in part. If such discussion results in a consensus that does not support such a reversion, then a user reverting anyway is working against the collaborative spirit of Wikipedia.

2b) Repeatedly performing such reversions on an article, in whole or in part, should not be tolerated.

2c) A user does not have to violate the three-revert rule to be involved in an edit war.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * @Cutno: Actually, I very much read the edit warring policy (and have seen admins act upon  it as well in that manner) to mean that it edit wars do not have to  involve three reverts in a single day. It specifically calls 3RR "a  common kind of edit war behavior" rather than the sum of what edit  warring is. Can you think of a better way for me to say this and still  get my meaning across? BOZ  (talk) 02:41, 6 March 2010 (UTC)


 * 3RR pertains specifically to edits in a 24-hour period. But edit warring  in general does not.  Although has Asgardian has recently come close to violating 3RR, he has also engaged in edit warring that did not involve 3RR. Remember,  3RR is simply one type  of edit warring. Nightscream (talk) 02:45, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's what I meant. Is there a better way I can say this and still get  my meaning across? BOZ (talk)  02:46, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I think you did. It's all good. :-) Nightscream (talk) 02:49, 6 March 2010 (UTC) (For the record, I was responding to Cutno's post. BOZ's second post, which is right above  this one, was made at the same time, so I hadn't yet read it when I made  this one a few minutes ago. Nightscream (talk) 02:56, 6 March 2010 (UTC))
 * @Cutno: 3RR  refers to edits by the   same editor. Not three  identical reversions by more than one editor (unless you're talking  about meatpuppetry, which would need to be established in some way). An  uninvovled editoir stumbling in and making one reversion identical to  two or three previous ones by another editor would not violate 3RR. Nightscream (talk) 02:58, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * @Cutno: How about "A user does not need to have violated the three-revert rule to be engaged in edit warring"? I'm trying to  think of a way to present the idea that edit warring is not a binary  "Did not break 3RR so you are not edit warring" Yes/No sort of  proposition. BOZ (talk)  03:06, 6 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * I disagree with 2c. Other editors that may come along and revert the article, without knowing about a current edit war, should not be in violation 3RR. In fact the policy states 3 (three) edits are needed. Not 2. Not 1. But 3. 2c's passage may hinder the process of editing, even discouraging editing at all. Cutno (talk) 02:06, 6 March 2010 (UTC)


 * @BOZ - What about uninvolved editors that edit the article in question? I'm certian that if they stumble in and edit, then be blocked... its just not good sense. Re-phrasing of proposal 2c to exclude editors who are in the wrong place at the wrong time is needed. I strongly appeal to ArbCom to discuss this throughly. Cutno (talk) 02:56, 6 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I have made a motion to ArbCom regarding this matter. Cutno (talk) 03:04, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Past dispute resolution
3) The Arbitration Committee may weigh past dispute resolution attempts pertaining to a Wikipedian, as well as their frequency of recurrence, when deciding upon appropriate preventive remedies. This includes arbitration decisions, and user requests for comment.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Belittling editors
4a) It is inappropriate and incivil for an editor to try to win an agument with another editor, or to try to make them look bad in conversations with other editors, by calling them "immature", "inexperienced", "emotive", or mentioning the fact that they have "medical conditions" (which affect how that editor expressives him/herself).

4b) Such references can be considered personal attacks, depending on how they are used.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Edit summaries
5a) Policy states: "It is considered good practice to always provide an edit summary, but it is especially important when reverting the actions of other editors, or if you delete any text" (emphasis mine). Intentionally leaving incomplete or inaccurate edit summaries, or using no summary at all, while making significant changes to the article, especially when reverting parts of the text that other editor(s) have made, may keep such changes from being noticed by otherwise interested editors.

5b) Policy also states: "Avoid using edit summaries to carry on debates or negotiation over the content or to express opinions of the other users involved." This behavior should be avoided, even when the other party is doing so.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
6) {text of Proposed principle}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Past sanctions
1) Asgardian has previously been sanctioned in December 2007 by the Arbitration Committee in the Asgardian-Tenebrae case for having "frequently engaged in sustained edit-warring, for which he has repeatedly been blocked, and due to which a number of articles have been protected".


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Request for Comment
2) In December 2009, Asgardian was subject to a user-conduct request for comment that focused on his alleged misconduct, including article ownership issues, edit-warring, misuse of edit summaries, gaming the system, working against consensus, sockpuppetry, removing maintenance templates on unresolved problems, editing to prove a point, deceptiveness, incivility, and other issues. There was ultimately no resolution proposed in the RfC, which was closed when this arbitration case was accepted.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Block history
3) Asgardian has been blocked a total of 15 times (plus three block extensions) by 9 different administrators since October 2006, with reasons given reflecting items later brought up in his request for comment; only three of these blocks were reversed.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
4) {text of proposed finding of fact}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

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

Comics topic ban
1) Asgardian is topic banned for a period of one year from all comic book related articles. He is free to post at the WikiProject Comics talk page, any article talk page, or any user talk page relating to comics articles. At the end of one year, the Arbitration Committe will determine if the ban is to be lifted or extended.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * This proposal is somewhere between Nightscream's and Tenebrae's (although it could be added on top of of Tenebrae's, and added after Nightscream's proposal should it end at some point). Note that I have no personal preference in which remedy/remedies is ultimately chosen, so long as something reigns this situation in. BOZ (talk) 03:53, 28 March 2010 (UTC)


 * And if Asgardian should decide to begin editing other types of articles, and exhibit the same problem on those, then what? This would merely be transferring a problem from one part of the project to another. His recent edit warring on Beyonce Knowles illustrates this. Nightscream (talk) 19:27, 30 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Topic ban for certain comics articles
2) Asgardian is topic banned for a period of one year from a list of articles and their talk pages, to be determined. Additional articles can be added to or removed from this list as determined necessary by appeal to the Arbitration Committee. At the end of one year, the Arbitration Committe will determine if the ban is to be lifted or extended.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * I had been mulling something like this over in my head; I would very much appreciate seeing a draft list. Steve Smith (talk) 18:19, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * This was essentially done in the last case. The results was a number of blocks for violations, and then eventually this case. Not sure I want to repeat that again. KnightLago (talk) 19:19, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I may have confused them in my head. I am just looking for something that is going to work. And I am not sure this will. I do not want to see this at AE in a week, and I fear that is what will happen. KnightLago (talk) 19:36, 29 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * This is a less severe alternative, which I first mentioned before this case was accepted, and which allows Asgardian to retain his full editing rights on articles where he can avoid controversy. I'll come up with suggestions on which articles should be listed, if ArbCom is interested in entertaining this idea. BOZ (talk) 03:53, 28 March 2010 (UTC)


 * This is a step in the right direction and I do appreciate that BOZ is trying to be the voice of reason. I do note with some interest that it only appears to be certain Marvel Comics articles that attract controversy. Curiously, no one seems to particularly care about changes to the DC Comics articles. That said, I don't believe I should be banned from Marvel articles when the conduct of some has been far more extreme that my own (eg. DavidA's fixation with the cosmic articles). Some kind of check and balance system - actually not a bad idea across the whole of Wikipedia for contentious artcles - could be pioneered here. No more than three edits on an article per 7 days perhaps? Something like this could really rein in many heated debates over article content (heck, it could be called a "Fuel Guage" or something suitably Wiki-like, and after 3 uses you are on empty for the rest of the week).


 * This one has potential above and beyond my circumstances. Asgardian (talk) 13:28, 29 March 2010 (UTC)


 * @Steve - Will do, although it may not be today. I'll try to guage several example pages where disputes have been ongoing over time, and each one should be examined on a case-by-case basis for appropriateness. BOZ (talk) 19:26, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * @KnightLago - I believe the last Arb case had a restriction on reversions, but (unless I just need to go back and read it) I don't recall any topic bans. Note that my proposal would allow Arbs to place additional articles under the ban at their discretion, should it be necessary. BOZ (talk) 19:26, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * @KnightLago - I hear what you're saying. How about if I generate a small list (say 2-5) and if you and Steve think it's worth my time I can dig deeper? For starters, the first one I can think of off the top of my head is probably the worst example: Galactus. There has been a metric ton of back-and-forth between the article's top four contributors for the past few years - in fact, I'd say that reversions most likely count for a sizeable percentage of those nearly 1000 edits from the four of them. It's been quiet for a whole month; removing Asgardian from that equation may or may not solve that article's problems though. BOZ (talk) 22:20, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Galactus was a lot worse than it is, true - but there is a long history on that article stretching back to at least 2008 if not 2007, and involved a lot more than just the four principle editors (those have been just the most consistent ones fighting with each other over time). Quicksilver (comics) has definitely had more recent dust-ups involving Asgardian, although I don't believe that one has much in the way of a turbulent history.
 * Two articles that have had plenty of trouble are Dormammu and Juggernaut (comics), and I think these should be examined as prime examples for possible topic ban (if any are to be considered at all). Asgardian has found himself coming up against people on several occasions on the Dormammu article for most of the past year, and at Juggernaut for most of the past six months. I could come up with other examples, if you feel it's worth looking deeper into this. BOZ (talk) 04:19, 30 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Galactus isn't really a problem anymore, as the actual conflict was around 1-2 years ago, and you recently accepted my idea of going through you with the evidence for anything the hardcore fans might be opposed to, meaning mainly the two mentioned stubbornly maintained inaccuracies (one of which you fixed already, but they kept the incorrect info in the image text), as well as a tendency to either reinvent events to sound more impressive, in the style of ¨Galactus deemed the entire race of gods unfit to survive and singlehandedly wiped them from existence¨, (never mind that nothing of the sort was said, or that just two of them were shown as too much to handle), alternately selectively edit out any information that portrayed the character in a more questionable light, such as the first 6 issues of the Thanos series. It's too one-track selective and blindsided for my taste when editors only allow wordings that endorse a character whose entire point is literally serial-genocide as blood sacrifice. Still, most of the problems are fixed by now, as the page used to be much more heavily biased than it is, and if I get the interest and energy again I'll upload those "Rom" scans regarding the planet moving for you to overview. That said, given how many other pages  Asgardian has deleted all P and A references for, I find it odd that he didn't give Galactus a similar workthrough. He isn't really a problem in this article though. Two apparently honest but blindsided other editors have been previously. They've turned more willing to compromise and to strictly insert reliable information though. Dave (talk) 23:51, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Template
1) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
2) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Openness, transparency and directness
1) In matters of fact and reason, ideas are falsifiable, and not dogmatic. That is, they are not true by way of mere flat assertion or bold claim. Conclusions are validated on the basis of the evidence and reasoning offered to illustrate them, as do refutations of them. A party making an assertion, especially if it constitutes an accusation, bears responsibility to illustrate it with evidence/reasoning that not shows it to be likely, but to the exclusion of other explanations. If that evidence/reasoning supports the conclusion, then the accused is responsible for falsifying it, using the same standard. If he/she does so, the accuser must rebut in kind, and so forth. Merely attacking one's accuser, stonewalling on the assertions, employing logical fallacies or false information or claiming that being criticized in and of itself, is some sort of "attack", does not serve to falsify the assertion, and is antithetical to this principle.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Principles of Civility
3) WP:Civility/WP:Assume Good Faith/WP:No Personal Attacks/WP:Avoid Personal Remarks are all clear that engaging in personal remarks about other editors is unacceptable. I would include the qualifier that such topics are only acceptable if their relevance to a discussion on a party's behavior, or their edits, can be unambiguously shown. Personal remarks that does not bear on this, such as falsely accusing them of being "emotive", harboring a "grudge" or "obsession", casting aspersions about their edit history or experience, making mention of their medical condition, etc. are unacceptable.

Good faith criticism
2) Part of assuming and showing good faith is recognizing a distinction between legitimate criticism and indiscriminate attacks. When a party has followed the aforementioned principles, and has illustrated an accusation that would appear to be reasonable, that does not constitute an "attack", "incivility" or "negativity". Failure to illustrate this distinction is not intellectually honest, nor indicative of WP:AGF.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Stonewalling
1) Asgardian repeatedly stonewalls when refutations of his statements are offered. Although he gives limited responses to the violations initially presented, they tend to be vague, oblique, and do not stand up to scrutiny. When this is pointed out, he refuses to respond. When the information he presents as counter-evidence is refuted, he ignores this, and simply repeats it. Stonewalling is one of the behaviors described by WP:GAME (Example 7).


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Non sequiturs, ad hominem arguments, and similar assertions in response to criticism
2) Asgardian makes statements that have no bearing on the accusations against him, including personal comments, unsubstantiated accusations and vague innuendo about his critics, such as accusing them of being "emotive", harboring personal grudges, having questionable edit histories, being less experienced than him, being intimidated by his superior knowledge, and even mentioning their medical condition. As an extension of the aforementioned stonewalling, he justifies not responding to rebuttals by claiming that such rebuttals constitute "attacks", "negativity" and "allegations". This is also described by WP:GAME (Example 4).


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Deliberate falsehoods and other forms of dishonesty
3) Asgardian employs euphemism, distortion and other false statements that are almost certainly deliberately mendacious, a number of which I and others have documented.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Double standards
4) Asgardian frequently criticizes others for the infractions described here. He has criticized others for not responding to his statements, has made extremely emotive, uncivil statements, dismissed criticism as "subjective" or merely "opinion", only to present subjective statements of opinion himself, etc. While double standards aren't necessarily a policy violation, they illustrate his lack of sincerity when selectively citing certain principles in response to those he has had disputes with.

Proposed remedies
Because Asgardian has been given numerous opportunities to realize that his behavior is problematic, and he has steadfastly refused to do so, persisting in it right up to and including this arbitration process, it is clear that it will continue unless his editing privileges are permanently taken away. Should there come a time when he is willing to abandon this behavior, and illustrate this transparently, by answering questions directly and without evasion about both principles of good collaboration and which past behaviors on his part compromise it, then I would not be opposed to welcoming him back, since he has the potential to be a valued contributor to this project. Barring this, he should no longer be allowed to edit Wikipedia.

Template
1) {text of proposed remedy}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
2) {text of proposed remedy}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
2) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

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.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Support in substance. There's a standard formulation on this one that's a little more clear; please let me know if you can't find it in the precedent wordings. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:37, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I've looked at a couple of the standard formulations, but didn't see one that states that slow moving disputes are prohibited even though they do not break 3RR per se. Are you thinking of one with that? KnightLago (talk) 18:52, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2 is the sort of thing I had in mind, though it doesn't mention "slow-moving" per se. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:00, 30 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * I agree, although there needs to be some clarification about the whether by reversion or otherwise qualifier, as this technically occurs every day on dozens of articles. It is also somewhat grey as it does not factor in exactly what the contentious material in question may be. For example, one editor may be reverting another's entire edit, and in so doing not only removing Biographical material but also legitimate technical information such as dates and sources. I think some clairification is needed here, as "edit warring" may not be the appropriate term in every case. Asgardian (talk) 08:06, 26 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

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.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * WP:THIRD and WP:RFC (and eventually WP:RFM) are available for such purposes. I agree that dispute resolution over content is often problematic and that it is in some cases impossible; but if it's impossible with good behavious and equally impossible with bad behaviour, you might as well practice good behaviour. Steve Smith (talk) 21:51, 26 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * I agree once again, except that this relates to the first point and once again there is grey and Wikipedia does not have all the answers. An example is Template: Marvel Cosmic. I've tried repeatedly to reason (discussion) with a user who now apparently only appears on Wikipedia to monitor one article. One. I've even tried asking for comment at WikiProject Comics with no success. What does one do? Asgardian (talk) 21:00, 26 .March 2010 (UTC)

-
 * Comment by others:
 * And that's more of the usual severe misrepresentation games. In Galactus I am opposed to what I perceive as outright propaganda-themed lies, such as fiercely maintaining that the character moved a Galaxy, even though the reference itself is unclear, 2-3 later comics by the same writer state that he only moved a planet, which is repeated in the handbooks, or that he contains a universe, even though the reference clearly shows the spirit of the previous universe to simply transform him and remain separate afterwards. Yet I´ve still let it go for over a year when logic and evidence in the talk didn´t matter to severe bias in the ongoing ¨page-maintainers¨. I have been very reasonable when actually disproven as with the recent ¨Secret Wars¨ series, and now try to go through BOZ for any changes.
 * As for the Marvel:Cosmic template, I previously went along with consensus in merging the ¨Abstract Entities¨ and ¨Universal Functions¨ categories despite being opposed, and we already had an agreement to keep the ¨Infinity Gauntlet¨/¨Nemesis¨ in the ¨omnipotents¨ section after I showed you a scan wherein it was outright stated to be comparable to another entity in the section. It was first after your review started up that you returned to making changes to this again, presumably to get a convenient ¨example¨ to cite here, but all I'm doing is to revert to the version I and User:TheBalance agreed on as a mutually acceptable mid-way compromise, and you had previously accepted. You are the one trying to enforce actual changes. My own preferred version, linked to in the Talk, would look very different, but none of the people you brought in, through a misleading link to an 8-month old discussion that had nothing to do with what we were currently doing, have responded yet, so I don't make any changes.
 * Regarding the ¨abuse¨, as Nightscream has extensively stated, that´s your falsified term/defacto shield for stating outright what you are doing. You on the other hand, have genuinely abused me to extremes with your relentless neverending incredibly time-wasting games, misinformation-mongering, lies, broken deals, and manipulations, or even trying to use my various mental handicaps as a recurrent convenient weapon, and it should be noted that I find dealing with this type of behaviour much more painful and tiresome than a regular person. As linked in the RFC, you have even admitted that you are consistently goading me to get the predictable convenient reaction, since directness/honesty is the only way I can express myself.
 * And regarding, ¨only monitoring one article¨ you also know full well that you are the one mainly responsible for gradually almost completely exhausting my energy for Wikipedia, as I've said and shown as much, and used to contribute to lots of articles, and going by the RFC I'm far from the only one you have had this effect on. So yet another, comparatively mild, example of your regular misleading rhetorics and manipulations. Dave (talk) 22:16, 26 March 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.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * I agree once again, and have made many attempts to do so. I have posted many recent examples of this during the case. Unfortunately, several other editors have in recent times not done so. I have been dealing with one user who used a sockpuppet to revert and call me a "troll" at Abomination; another who apparently only appeared to insist on an inferior version of an article at Juggernaut and been repeatedly abused by yet another who fought tooth and nail against consensus at Galactus and displays ownership of Template: Marvel Cosmic. To conclude, expectations must extend to everyone. My Edit History will show that even now I am attempting to reach consensus on articles, despite possibly less than professional behaviour from others. Asgardian (talk) 21:12, 26 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * As noted above in my comment at Edit-warring, ownership — often brandishing the phrase "[my] Wiki-correct version" — is a longstanding issue, as documented here. Saying "Other people do it, too" is not a strong defense. --Tenebrae (talk) 02:11, 28 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Agreed, and neither is pointing out instances of following such policies. The issues here are the instances in which Asgardian has not done this, as has been extensively documented by multiple parties. Nightscream (talk) 21:33, 29 March 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.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * I agree that leaving edit summaries blank is not sanctionable behaviour, though it is undesirable. As for misleading edit summaries, both of the following accurately describe a portion of the edit, while failing to mention other, likely more controversial, elements:, . Steve Smith (talk) 21:53, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It may be helpful to mention the ability to adjust one's settings to prompt for an edit summary when it's left blank the first time. This helps many users (including myself) keep their edit summary usage a lot higher than they would otherwise have. In any event, for the benefit of the readers of this page, I mention it here. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:45, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I maybe stretching it, but when one does not use edit summaries in order to deceive or hide a controversial edit, I think there are grounds for sanctions. There are differences below where an edit summary was not used in the midst of an edit war to remove disputed content. I find that problematic. KnightLago (talk) 18:55, 29 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * Agreed. That said, what about the hundreds, perhaps thousands of articles that are edited daily by users who leave no comment? Where possible I leave summaries (sometimes I forget), but this is not a Wikipedia offence. This also extends to Edit Summary substance - it can vary considerably from user to user and at times there may not be room to comment on all changes. I would like to also ask where is the definative proof of any deception or "cover-up". Accusations by users do not make a case as it is impossible for them to know what another editor is thinking. This is a very grey point and given that it is not policed across Wikipedia should probably be removed. Asgardian (talk) 21:19, 26 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Further to KnightLago's comment above, I'm happy to enter into some kind of agreement with a mentor on this issue. The larger issue, however, still needs to be addressed by Wikipedia. I support Atmoz's comment as it is still a grey area.  Asgardian (talk) 02:02, 31 March 2010 (UTC)


 * No, it simply means that it needs to be enforced more often. Again, "Other violate the rules, therefore, I can do so too" is not a valid defense. The solution to inconsistent enforcement of a rule is more consistent enforcement, not abandonment of the rule, which would only be a reasonable solution is the rule itself were found to be wrong. In addition, I observe most of the failures to adhere to this guideline to be from anonymous IP's, which may be largely newbies. Nightscream (talk) 19:27, 30 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Oppose, unless you can point to a policy or guideline that supports the assertion that edit summaries are "expected". The current link is to the help namespace and still doesn't show that editors are expected to use edit summaries. It only says that it is "good practice". The part about misleading edit summaries is okay, but there should be a better word than "prohibited". -Atmoz (talk) 01:48, 30 March 2010 (UTC)


 * That's just wikilawyering. Nightscream (talk) 19:27, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * No it's not. I can find nothing written anywhere that says that editors are expected to use edit summaries. If there is, point it out. If there isn't, sit down and sit quietly in the corner. I can't read arbcoms mind about what I'm expected to do. Arbcom does not have the remit to impose its views on what is acceptable and unacceptable practice. If arbcom members think that edit summaries are expected, then they can propose that as a policy/guideline or attempt to make it a technical requirement that edit summaries are required. But they cannot enforce policy that doesn't exist. -Atmoz (talk) 02:59, 31 March 2010 (UTC)


 * First of all, please do not speak to other editors in this manner. While asking for a citation of a guideline is perfectly reasonable and civil, "Sit down and sit quietly in the corner" is not. Let's keep cool heads here, okay? :-)


 * As for your question, it states at the top of WP:ES "It is good practice to fill in the Edit Summary field, or add to it in the case of section editing, as this helps others to understand the intention of your edit." In other words, edit summaries are expected. They wouldn't put it at the top of that consensus page if they weren't. Similar language repeats that sentiment on the rest of that page. In any event, using deceptive edit summaries as a way to evade detection of controversial or contentious edits is not part of good faith collaboration, regardless of whether the word "expected" is used in pages discussing this. Nightscream (talk) 03:07, 2 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Additionally, an editor clearly should not insert misleading or untrue edit summaries. I don't believe we need a Wikipedia policy in order to enforce the stricture of "Tell the truth." -- Tenebrae (talk) 01:52, 5 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.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * I agree in principle, but once again this is a very nebulous area. I believe in courtesy, although this has not been extended to me on many, many occasions. DrBat used a sockpuppet to call me a "troll", and the evidence presented during the case shows just some of the incivility I have been subjected to by DavidA. It could also be argued (and quite easily) that many of Nightscream's comments during this process have been emotional, accusing and even venomous (I apparently have no values and am a dishonest person). None of this is fair, and I have never been this negative about anyone on Wikipedia. I have expressed concern about the behaviour of some, and asked for input, but do not resort to this behaviour. I was uncivil to someone (possibly two people) something like 2-3 years ago, and have repeatedly apologized (I can even do so on their Talk pages if requested).


 * Also, if one expresses concern about someone due to their behaviour (after all, that is all that we have as a barometer), and attempts to attribute it to youth or inexperience or even a medical condition, then I think this is reasonable if put in courteous terms. After all, youth and inexperience with Wikipedia are common issues for editors.


 * On a final note, although Wikipedia has a "Wikiquette" system, it would appear to be a toothless tiger, as people are warned (a la DavidA) and continue to be uncivil. Asgardian (talk) 21:29, 26 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Individual instances can be nebulous, but civility in general is not. Your incivility has been clearly documented, and you have failed to falsify the evidence against you, once again complaining that others are incivil, and claiming that merely being accused of policy violations like this is itself a violation. You have been accused of said behaviors because you have indeed exhibited them, and where evidence is provided in good faith that establishes this, such accusations are not unwarranted, let alone "venomous" or "emotional", which are just code words for truths that you know you cannot refute. I have never accused you of having "no values", but I have clearly illustrated your dishonesty, as have others here. If we have failed to do this, then you could've falsified the evidence by explaining why it was not valid. You have not. Nightscream (talk) 19:27, 30 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I certainly hope I haven't "falsified" any evidence! See which address most of the points and provides a link that shows we all live in a glasshouse and perhaps should not throw stones.

As to your attempting to refute my claims, I can only refer editors once again to these links (WhatamIdoing's comment:); BOZ states not a Nightscream decision: ) which show some motive.

There is also this and in the conclusion you state I have a character issue, which is effectviely judging me as a person on on a very personal level. This does imply that you call my values into question, as does your claim above that you have apparently "clearly illustrated your (my) dishonesty". This is very personal and unfortunate, reeks of the very incivility you denounce. On a more serious level, it is also libel. Very sad to see it come to this.

Asgardian (talk) 03:57, 31 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Your remark about falsifiability aside (a rather emotive one, of course, for which you reserve exclusive privilege while chastising others for this), nothing you provided refuted or invalidated the evidence against you, as your rebuttal was simply the same stock collection of non sequiturs and stonewalling, which didn't even address most of the evidence presented anyway.


 * I have repeatedly responded to your knee-jerk holding up of WhatamIdoing's comments on my evidence page, where I debunked it, and pointed out on the Arbitration Evidence Talk Page how your response to this is to simply ignore this, and repeatedly cite him over and over. Your comment above is simply one more example further illustrating this. But again--if you can respond to my rebuttal of your citation of WhatamIdoing (and BOZ, which I also responded to), then please do so.


 * Judging you on the basis of your behavior is entirely reasonable, and not incivil, so long as it is done in good faith, with evidence mounted that illustrates the thesis to the exclusion of altertante explanations, a standard that I and the others here have met. Whether this means you have no values is a separate question that I have no interest in, and have not touched upon. That you choose to equate the former with the latter, and even make a clumsy attempt at using a legal term that doesn't apply, is entirely on your shoulders, not mine. Nightscream (talk) 03:07, 2 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

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.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * I agree. I make every effort to communicate with others now when there are issues, and often have to deal with blind reverting by others. Asgardian (talk) 21:51, 26 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * This may be the central point of the entire Arb. Following the late-2007 to late-2008 probation, things returned to how they were before. Along with all else, the comments by numerous editors at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Asgardian make a bright-line case for Asgardian's recidivism. --Tenebrae (talk) 02:48, 28 March 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.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * True, but a number of those blocks were overturned and others were highly questionable, with a few assumptions being made. More discussion about Wikipedia principles and how to address those grey areas is required. Asgardian (talk) 21:51, 26 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I count about 12 upheld blocks, and 3 reversed ones. Of those three, one was my second block of Asgardian, which should not have been reversed. Nightscream (talk) 19:27, 30 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Note! And with the comment which should not have been reversed we have the smoking gun. As I indicated here, Nightscream appeared to have an issue with the fact that his questionable block was challenged. Proof positive, and this goes to the comment made by another editor here (WhatamIdoing's comment:.


 * This is obviously a personal issue, and I hope that ruling parties take his evidence with the proverbial grain of salt.


 * Asgardian (talk) 03:32, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

"Proof positive" of what? That when one administrator enacts a block, that he/she is likely to disagree with another one overturning it? This is a revelation to you? There is not "smoking gun", just an administrator in whose opinion it was wrong for the block to have been overturned, used by you as an excuse to one again cite the comments of an editor to supposedly rebut the evidence against you, despite the fact that he stated openly that he was not defending you, and that some of your behavior was "indefensible". Your only reason for citing him, much as with your dredging up my conflict with Jean-Jacques George, is because of the propaganda-like mentality that any sort of unrelated conflict between your critics and some other parties somehow invalidates the critics' position against you, but deliberately ignore instances in which those same editors you cite have harsh words for you. Nightscream (talk) 03:07, 2 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * I'm not sure what number of blocks were overturned — maybe one. It is understandably his own opinion that any were questionable, highly or otherwise, but the opposing editor(s) and the admins involved would naturally disagree. The most important takeaway in this "Past case" section may be that his previous year-long sanction did not significantly impact on his subsequent behavior. --Tenebrae (talk) 02:54, 28 March 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.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Noting that this is by no means an exhaustive list; nor does it illustrate the entire extent of the edit-warring. KnightLago (talk) 13:53, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Edit-warring, no matter the correctness of your edits and the incorrectness of the other user's edits, is prohibited. And edit-warring is not an acceptable course of action to address anything. After this long period of time, and the previous case, it saddens me that you have not figured that out yet. KnightLago (talk) 19:07, 29 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * Not a really telling list by any means. Awesome Android and Dormammu were addressed. Others were making blind reverts and removing legitimate information. I was constantly making corrections. Infinity Gauntlet was not an edit war as it was resolved. The Red Hulk examples show transition between versions but is hardly an edit war. I have already addressed Template: Marvel Cosmic and attempted to discuss the issue on two fronts (currently talking with the other user but notice I did not revert).


 * I am willing to edit, and as such - as Scott Free indicated - it is not surprising I am engaged in minor disagreements with some. That said, all these editorial issues are eventually resolved. Asgardian (talk) 21:51, 26 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Whether a particular instance here or there may be a gray area, the edit-warring overall is a longstanding, well-documented pattern, both in the late 2007 case where Asgardian was put on probation for a year, and in more recent instances with a multiple number of editors as documented here. --Tenebrae (talk) 02:07, 28 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The Red Hulk manner was indeed an example of Asgardian's edit warring. This was detailed in my evidence, and it can be seen by looking at that article's edit history and talk page. Asgardian continued to revert, even blindly. I started a consensus discussion, in which four people agreed on one version, and disagreed with Asgardian. Asgardian continued to revert, during the discussion, and against the judgment of those four people. Asgardian has persistently refused to respond to this point when it is brought up, preferring instead to employ further euphemisms like "transition". Nightscream (talk) 19:27, 30 March 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.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Replied to this above. KnightLago (talk) 19:10, 29 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * I've already addressed this issue, and still feel it is very nebulous. It is open to interpretation and assumption by others. That said, having a mentor (as per my proposed solution) may help with this relatively small issue. Asgardian (talk) 21:54, 26 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * This has been a recurring issue. Aside from the multiple examples given here, editors have also pointed out this example and others — including several where he goes so far as to unilaterally removes tags without any mention in the edit summary: Line 66 here, Line 1 here, with the edit summary reading merely "Correction"; Line 1 here, with no edit summary at all, to give a small sampling. --Tenebrae (talk) 02:38, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

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


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Not sure if this will make the proposed decision. There seems to be a pattern of saying that other editors are obsessed, addicted, or have mental problems in regard to Wikipedia, but I did not find much beyond that. If I missed something please let me know. KnightLago (talk) 13:55, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * @Nightscream - I recognize those comments are inappropriate, I was just looking for more. I will take a look at the links you provided. KnightLago (talk) 19:18, 25 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * Saying that other editors are obsessed, addicted, or have mental problems is indeed sufficient to illustrate the point, so I'm not sure what more you need, but if you require more examples, you can check out the evidence I compiled, specifically the section Use of ad hominem arguments and other personal attacks and innuendoand some of the material in Deliberate falsehoods and general dishonesty (in particular the portion of that latter section that begins "Asgardian claims that those he has had edit disputes with, and those on the RfC page, are “less experienced” or “inexperienced..."). Nightscream (talk) 18:10, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, noting that an editor is "younger", as part of pointing out inexperience - I have seen this before as well. BOZ (talk) 19:20, 25 March 2010 (UTC)


 * This all goes to my comments above on civility. If someone is using inappropriate language or behaving erratically, I think it perfectly reasonable to discuss the issue so long as it does not become venomous. After all, how else can one have a discussion about the issues? Also note the posted examples are not out and out incivility - just me expressing concern about another user (reasonale - I've been asked if I have a medical condition). By the by, let's all admit that most comic editors are young and often inexperienced and as such need occasional managing.
 * A far cry from the incivility I have been subject to in the past. Asgardian (talk) 22:02, 26 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Note! Further to this, Tenebrae refers to here, but I'm not seeing this as being a great issue at all. I have repeatedly apologized for comments made 2-3 years ago, but since that time have made no comments that come even close to the level of incivility shown towards myself. Yes, I have used the emotive, and have referred to some politely as inexperienced. That is because their comments reflect this. How else would one describe their behaviour to others? The evidence presented thus far certainly indicates this (eg. DavidA; Ghidorah; DrBat; Nightscream and so on).


 * There is also no conspiracy, despite what Tenebrae believes I may think. There is some collective gangpiling happening here, but no elaborate plot. Again, there is some degree of conflict because I am prepared to try for a better version of article that is sometimes offered up by others. Asgardian (talk) 13:13, 29 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I have repeatedly apologized for comments made 2-3 years ago, but since that time have made no comments that come even close to the level of incivility shown towards myself. Your documented incivility includes that which is more recent than 2-3 years ago, including this newly adopted "emotive" tact, which you use whenever you disagree with another editor.

'Yes, I have used the emotive, and have referred to some politely as inexperienced''. That is because their comments reflect this.''' Their comments typically do not reflect this. They reflect quite neutral disagreement, and even if we granted, for the sake of argument, that many editors are frustrated with your behavior, that is hardly surprising, nor does it invalidate their position, when it is precisely your behavior that causes it. Naturally, of course, you exempt yourself from this criticism, despite your own lapses into emotiveness, such as this quite recent example.

As for experience, experience has nothing to do with comments. Experience is a question of the time one has spent editing, which can be discerned by one's edit count or tenure, and I have shown that your statement that in this regard is false. It is this evidence which shows such statements on your part to not only be false, but ad hominem attacks.

How else would one describe their behaviour to others? You don't. You comment on content, not on the contributor. If you cared to understand this principle, your ability to collaborate with others would be greater. Nightscream (talk) 19:27, 30 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Nightscream, I'm sorry, but you are incorrect. This example this quite recent example is harmless, and reflects my attempt to stop a minute by minute edit war at Galactus. Saying "That's enough!" is the equivalent of stating "Take it to the Talk Page NOW", which something other long time editors have done. There is nothing in this at all.

As to your "list", I'm afraid it shows very little and is open to interpretation. Experience is not simply about the amount of time one has been editing. It is more about the quality of the edits. You list editors who on paper have been editing longer that I have, and do all their edits reflect experience? Several of these editors have had their own troubles. The mere fact that you would commit such an amount of time to do this goes to the comment made by another editor here. It was followed by a similar comment made here by BOZ, that this is not a Nightscream decision.

Finally, the comment "If you cared to understand this principle, your ability to collaborate with others would be greater." is a tad silly. You are being derogatory and again, making an assumption. Once again, one can express concern in light neutral terms about editor conduct, and terms such as "inexperienced" and "emotive" fit the bill. They are far kinder, than "troll" and "liar", terms you know have been applied to myself. In keeping with this, I have sought others advice on said editors to attempt to resolve the issues. This shows an ability to collaborate.

I would also remind you of this recent exchange in which one editor believes your comments to be a tad "uncivil." My point being that, even relatively experienced editors can do better. We can all be smarter. Asgardian (talk) 01:54, 31 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Further to this, a little clarification on Emperor's hasty claim re: Quicksilver. I have raised points in both the Edit Summary and on the Talk Page, which the IP (who will not even sign posts when requested and accused me of vandalism) has yet to address. All I've received in response is a blind revert with no comment. Asgardian (talk) 04:16, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

In other words, you have justification for making statements that are clearly heated (i.e.: emotive), and which could've been expressed a bit more cooly, but you do not extend this courtesy to others, even when their comments are just as or even more harmless. Thank you for admitting to the double standard.

Your remarks about others' experience is equally unsupported. Edit count and tenure are not subject to "interpretation", as they are objectively measurable, certainly moreso than your completely subjective and self-aggrandizing remarks about "quality", which is an entirely separate issue that is determined by collaboration and consensus. It is interesting that you complain on the one hand when others make statements that you dismisss as "sujective", "assumptions", "opinion" and "open to interpretation", but then claim the exclusive priviledge to not only determine the criterion for experience, but use a completely arbitrary and subjective one at that. It's also convenient that you again use the tired double-standard of others' "troubles", when the record shows that you have had more blocks and more troubles with the community here than anyone else. That anyone can be so narcisistic to as to dismiss anyone who is critical of him, and not even consider that he may be the one with the problem, is fascinating, and unfortunate that it has taken up so much of the community's patience and time.

Terms such as "inexperienced" and "emotive" do not fit the bill, as they have nothing to do with conduct. Experience is a value accumulated from past events, and has nothing to do with current conduct or one's comments. Neither does "emotive", as it is merely an ad hominem remark about one's mindset that you use to taunt and dismiss those who take it upon themselves to critcize you about the fundamental problems of your behavior, which is not "derogatory" is it is conducted in good faith, with fidelity paid to the standards of empiricism.

As for your attempt to yet again bring up an irrelevant matter into this discussion: Fine, please tell me which comments by me to Jean-Jacques Georges, either during our initial exchange, or on the Wikiquette alert page where I reported him, were "uncivil". Would it be when he, responding to my leaving a polite message on his talk page, called me "cretinous"? Or when he called me ["arrogant" or "obnoxious"? By all means, if you truly believe I was uncivil to him, and did not bring him up solely because you hoped to distract attention yet again, [[ad hominem]], from the evidence against you, then I would be interested to read your view of this. Nightscream (talk) 03:07, 2 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Whilst edit warring with that user and not taking up the anon IPs suggestion they discuss this on the talk page (thus flouting WP:BRD too). It is often all part of a much larger pattern and often interweaves with other issues under discussion. (Emperor (talk) 02:36, 26 March 2010 (UTC))
 * If possible, could you check through the old RFC Page as well? It contains perspective and links from a wider assortment of editors. For instance, in this link he (for once) even outmits outright that he will keep being systematically dishonest as long as he can get away with it:
 * "I've grown very, very tired of edits like this where the editor does multiple things and then puts in a partially truthful edit summary."
 * "As for J Greb 's concern, I've made a request to be directed to the relevant rule on Wikipedia."
 * And according to Administrator Doczilla (34,516 edits since February 2006 No blocks 8 contributors who supported his viewpoint) Asgardian has outright "acknowledged stirring things up in Wikipedia for experimental purposes" (the standard advanced troll rationale), which is much the same pattern that I've noticed myself. Dave (talk) 13:19, 26 March 2010 (UTC)


 * This is a very big issue. In addition to examples here, Asgardian uses the term "emotive" a lot to demean others' stances, before the fact, as being emotional and not logical, as he presumably is being. He often claims, falsely, that only "inexperienced" editors have contentious relationships with him. He has also insinuated conspiracies by editors who all happen to disagree with him on an issue. --Tenebrae (talk) 02:45, 28 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Just a comment about the ¨incivility¨ focus. I don't get why this a focus. Sarcastic, ingratiating, and manipulative yes, uncivil no. I've been called much worse things than Asgardian has ever called me and not cared much afterwards. The crucial point is that he's proven himself to consistently lie, misdirect, use contradictory arguments, use sockpuppets, replaced references with opinion, and so on, and edirs an encyclopedia. Shouldn't this be the most important focus? I don't get it. He does have right to actually express an opinion outside of the articles after all. We can't demand othervise, or we help to force him to turn to deceit since he isn't allowed to express himself freely. This is the one point I don't think is fair. Dave (talk) 13:27, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

One of the policies crucial to collaboration and edit dispute directs us to focus on the content of edits (which in the case of disputes, would include the validity/merit of one's arguments). Focusing on the editor, rather than the content, by engaging in ad hominem arguments, smear tactics, and condescending personal rhetoric in which one alludes to principles that he himself does not adhere to, is indeed a violation of WP:CIV and WP:NPA, as well as WP:GAME, and makes it more difficult to resolve disputes, and maintain a friendly atmosphere. Asgardian has indeed engaged in this behavior, his callous allusions to your medical condition, being one example. This is relevant because it's a subset of his overall WP:OWN behavior, which he employs as a means to an end. His end is to impose his personal aeshtetics on articles, and engages in this secondary subset behavior when those impositions are challenged by the community. Nightscream (talk) 19:04, 2 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, it's very nice of you to show concern, but please remember that this is the American comic book industry environment we're talking about. Much of the entire point of that is to sprout hellfire&brimstone complete moral dissonance genocide fantasies, Mussolini-styled warmonger supremacism, addiction- and schizophrenia-inducing neverending hallucinogenic complete incoherence, Nietzschian ¨God mode Sue¨ acid trips, morbid sadist show humour to the most extreme extent, or for pretty much all the angles general ¨The Eternal Jew¨-styled misrepresentations, vilifications, bigotry, and general scapegoating of people with serious mental disabilities; that torturing and breaking people to suicide for kicks&giggles isn't nearly as bad as someone striking back in desperation, it's ¨the coward's way out¨9 anyway and will cause eternal torture afterwards, ¨the more pain you cause the more justified you get¨ and all that; and ignorant generalisations of that it's ¨all an imaginary attitude problem and not trying hard enough¨, regardless if there actually was trying harder than anyone around since birth involved or the definition of the disability itself means constant severe mental pain and confusion, and if that fails there's always some convenient conceited derogatory bigot term like ¨cutting out the cancer¨ to fall back on. Meaning: The movie ¨300¨ is very typical ideological fare for this environment, not nearly the worst despite literally justifying the exact values of Adolf Hitler and twisting historical context around completely, and I've been fed that self-loathing destructive crap since I could start to read, and likely so has Asgardian. I'm used to it, and it's likely turned into a big part of his ¨moral¨ system at this point. It all feeds itself, and is not likely to stop anytime soon. Dave (talk) 08:06, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Or to put it another way: This is a medium that routinely depicts anyone in a mental trauma ward, with damage beyond personal ability to repair, is an evil mass-murderer, and should be offhandedly mocked, condemned, and beaten up even further, and if possible assigned to first available torture pit, since all medical research is bogus, and anyway, they're ¨so pathetic that they're hilarious¨ and it's much more satisfying anyway. Meaning: I can't go around expecting overdone sensitivity training from products of that environment, and people who think we generally find the (inaccurate) word ¨retard¨ particularly offensive in comparison to outright Nazi propaganda machinery really miss the point. Dave (talk) 15:50, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Even if we assumed, for the sake of argument, your analysis of the American comic book industry as a given, that is irrelevant to issues of Wikipedia's rules of conduct. Wikipedia is a privately-owned website with guidelines for behavior intended to facilitate collaboration and efficacious dispute resolution. The notion that this is mitigated by the themes explored by the US comics industry (in fact, the US comics industry is quite diverse, and is not universally represented by your description of it), is false. Just because you perceive US comics to embody the values you mention does not justify Asgardian's inexcusable behavior. To argue that it does is a non sequitur. You may be used to it, and are generous to excuse it, but that doesn't mean that that behavior is permitted. I've been reading comics for over 25 years, I do not behave as he does, nor do I harbor the ignorance toward people with mental challenges that you describe. Nightscream (talk) 19:23, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, you're a nice enough fellow, but from what I've seen on message boards you seem like an exception rather than rule, with most faans probably a lot closer to an Encyclopedia Dramatica than Wikipedia mentality, and Asgardian doesn't even reach average bastard rating in this regard. He's even technically correct per definition about the ¨unbalanced¨ part, not exactly ¨shrieking and unhinged¨ though. He is however an ambitious time-consuming experimental manipulator and habitual liar running loose in an Encyclopedia, which is a much worse problem than some blatant troll.
 * As you say there is some variation in the industry (I certainly wouldn't place books like Bone, Gold Digger, or Dwayne McDuffie's wonderful animated work in this category), differs from creator to creator (JM DeMatteis is very sympathetic for example), and I should probably have said ¨superhero comics industry¨ (although the sadist show aspects stretch much farther than that), but still, going by my extensive experiences, there really an awful lot of that stuff going around. It would take ages to list it all, but all the mentions are directly borrowed (oddly the cynical Warren Ellis comes across as genuinely kind, whereas someone like Dan Slott can read as fake-light surface affably evil genuine bastard, and guys like Geoff Johnns shift wildly between the well-intentioned mentally ill Starman and Superboy Prime, who very much reads like a parody of an Asperger-Bipolar-ADD-OCD-possibly some Damp mixture like myself, who also typically prefers uplifting and understandable/relatable entertainment), and there have been plenty of additonal quotes off-page, like Walter Simonson stating that he actually agreed with all of his character Apocalypse's Mussolini rants. I suppose that some of the problem stems from the trappings of the genre, the whole 'beat any social problem into submission' aspect, status quo inducing automatic karma houdini or futility of repetition bits, or that creators bring a personal ideology to be applied to matters that really don't fit the mould and are simply about damage and that everyone has an upper limit to how much they can take (Fred Van Lente's Herc in Hell arc pretty much defeated its own point in that manner. Herc was split in two. One half was tortured for thousands of years, was abandoned by his family, and naturally went insane from the pain, which other Herc condemns as 'spoiled brat' attitude, that he was rightly abandoned, and threw him down a torture pit, which of course makes everything better, never mind that this was an exact copy, i.e. exactly what would happen to himself in the same circumstances), or that dysfunctions as extreme as what they condemn really tend to mean that the person didn't function remotely right in the first place (It's always open season on hobos for example, regardless that most end up like that due to serious mental illness), and there is that ongoing all-angle covering 'the victim is always at fault' trend. If there were more self-contained creator owned books it is possible that the conventions wouldn't be as restrictive to 'automatically' send very bad morals, but then again most of Image's output definitely isn't an improvement, so it may either be the superhero genre itself and its stranglehold on the market, the gradual seeping in of supremacist or nihilistic continuity elements from too many God mode Sue trips and militant libertarian designated heroic sociopath ultra violence-orgies, or that so many creators (cough John Byrne cough) seem like fake moralistic or extremist sadistic assholes who never let accuracy stand in the way of a good ¨your pain is funny, mine is a tragedy¨ satire. Going by independent strips like ¨Pearls Before Swine¨ or the works of Frank Miller it may just be the last one as a recurrent trait of American culture. Regardless, there are Eastern comics such as Bleach which take the ¨raid all asylums and refugee camps on principle¨ ideology even further, and Japan likely has an overall much greater love for supremacism, Fascism, and history-revisionism than America does. It's not a strictly local thing. However, I always do find it strange when seeing someone complaining about single words used in sentences, such as a recent letter to FF, rather than focusing on the contexts, such as the writer in question (Hickman) recurrentlly reiterating his ¨contempt for the weak¨, or in one case the ¨we tried to understand people with mental problems when we should have cut away the cancer¨ standard, and has a tendency to twist idealistic ideas into militant libertarian 'cautionary' nightmare scenarios. Now that is pretty offensive. ¨Retard¨, used by a random character, not so much. Dave (talk) 22:53, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

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

Topic ban
1) Asgardian is topic banned from articles pertaining to comics, their associated talk pages, and any process discussion about the same, broadly construed, for one year.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Proposed for consideration (that is, including this with the proposed decision is not a fait accompli). The hypothesis is that Asgardian's problematic behaviour might cease if he wasn't in an area in which he felt such a strong sense of ownership. Steve Smith (talk) 18:50, 30 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * Your notion that he only exhibits ownership behavior on comic related articles is an assumption, and one that does not square with the evidence. Again, look at his recent edit war on Beyonce Knowles. It shows that he does not exhibit one kind of behavior on comic-related articles, and a different kind in other types of articles, and there is no reason to supposed that he would have. A topic ban may merely transfer the problem of his behavior from one part of the project to another, which would hardly be courteous to the editors on other parts of the site. Nightscream (talk) 19:27, 30 March 2010 (UTC)


 * See my comments below re: Nightscream's erroneous assumption. Asgardian (talk) 01:21, 31 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Ban
2) Asgardian is banned from Wikipedia for one year.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Proposed for consideration (i.e. as above, not a fait accompli). When nothing else will do. Steve Smith (talk) 18:50, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The Beyonce differences demonstrate that nothing else will do I am afraid. I am leaning towards a ban. KnightLago (talk) 20:14, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * We are out of options. You had a previous case where you were given restrictions for sustained edit-warring. You were then blocked multiple times for violating those restrictions. You are now back at arbitration for the exact same conduct that resulted in you being restricted and blocked in the first place. Yet, you refuse to acknowledge your behavior is a problem. Instead, you continue to edit-war, including during this case.


 * I considered BOZ's proposals, but the problem is that your behavior is not restricted to just comic articles, and I am not going to have users chasing you all over Wikipedia emailing the Committee every time there is a problem. It is not fair to waste their time, or ours. I also considered your mentor proposal, and I do not think someone checking in on you is enough to control your behavior. You need to understand that edit-warring is not acceptable on Wikipedia, and stop. I am glad to hear you are now attempting to discuss things instead of continuing to edit-war, but how do I know this is going to continue? You have had multiple chances to change your conduct over a couple years, and you have not taken any of them. KnightLago (talk) 02:27, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Asgardian, this case has essentially been an exercise in you not listening to anybody telling you something other than what you want to hear. Why should we expect it would be any different with a mentor? Steve Smith (talk) 19:18, 31 March 2010 (UTC)


 * We are out of options because neither Steve or I can come up with anything other than a ban here. You say you have begun improving, but you last instance of edit-warring occurred less than a week ago, about five weeks into this case. If nothing else, arbitration usually at least stops problematic conduct while the case is going on. That has not happened here.


 * I am glad you apologized, but on February 8, you suggested another user was emotive. Something I believe I have seen you do before. But the incivility is not the major factor here, it is the edit-warring. And I know you now say you know edit-warring is not appropriate, but less than a week ago you were edit-warring, and we are nearing the end of a case where you face a serious remedy. So your statement strikes me as a bit disingenuous.


 * The conduct of some users in the differences I have gone through has not been great. However, the consistent thing throughout the differences I looked at was you, moving from article to article, edit-warring.


 * My comment was an assumption, but it is an assumption based off of the evidence I have sifted through, and then compiled for this case. Regarding no hope, you are back at arbitration after a couple years for the same conduct that led you arbitration in the first place. From my look at the evidence, your conduct has not changed at all in the interim.


 * I remain unconvinced that a mentor will work for you. I will be moving the case to voting either later tonight, or tomorrow morning. I am happy to keep discussing this with you, and I will specifically point the rest of the Committee to this section, so they a chance to weigh your statements. KnightLago (talk) 22:10, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

@BOZ, I do not think we are talking Arbitration Enforcement in the traditional sense, where a user is violating a remedy, say a 1RR, and is reported to AE. If it was suspected that someone was violating a ban the Arbitration Committee enacted, one could email the Committee and we would look into it, or ask the checkusers to look at it. Regarding options after a ban, we would extend the standard offer. 6 months of no socking, productive work on another wiki, and a promise not to resume the conduct that led to the ban in the first place. A request to end the year ban would be emailed to the Committee for the Ban Appeals Subcommittee to consider. Conditions could be attached at that point to further regulate a user's behavior. Otherwise, a 1 year ban means they would be allowed back in a year. If a user was found socking during their ban, the ban could be reset, or depending on the circumstances changed to indefinite. KnightLago (talk) 17:23, 2 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * I'm actually staggered by KnightLago's comment above. Despite the assertion by Nightscream - who actually supported my edit and then suddenly reversed his position - I made repeated attempts on the Talk Page of said article to resolve this. Repeated attempts. Other editors then pitched in and the statement was improved. There have also been numerous others examples - even as of the last 48 hours (!) - that show I am discussing issues. The comment "Nothing else will do" disregard this and does not take the proposals raised by BOZ and myself into consideration.

There is also this (WhatamIdoing's comment:), which I would humbly ask others to take into consideration when reviewing presented evidence. Asgardian (talk) 01:18, 31 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I have to disagree. Firstly, how are we "out of options"? If there had been no improvement, then that would be true.


 * Secondly, you reference my behaviour and yet I have apologized repeatedly for any past (and they were past : 2-3 years ago) for any uncivil behaviour. Yes, edit warring is not desirable or even appropriate. I know this now and have made repeated attempt to discuss issues with others (even now). Some real progress has been made on several fronts (a la Template:Marvel Cosmic).


 * Thirdly, is no one going to take into account the behaviour of others in atempting to resolve issues? One user who used a sockpuppet to make blind reverts and call me a troll (at Abomination) ? Another who only appeared on Wikipedia to police one article despite my constant attempts to discuss the issue (at Juggernaut? Or the behaviour displayed here by the editor who is pushing for a permanent ban, when another editor (link above) has clearly displayed concern at this conduct? Wikipedia needs to improve its' policies and guidelines to help deal with these issues.


 * I also find the comment "I am not going to have users chasing you all over Wikipedia emailing the Committee every time there is a problem. It is not fair to waste their time, or ours." to be unfair, an assumption and not objective.


 * The comment "I also considered your mentor proposal, and I do not think someone checking in on you is enough to control your behavior. You need to understand that edit-warring is not acceptable on Wikipedia, and stop. I am glad to hear you are now attempting to discuss things instead of continuing to edit-war, but how do I know this is going to continue?"


 * also implies there "is no hope". I disagree. I would refer you to Scott Free's comments, who has been a voice of reason, and recent edits show this and my suggestion of a mentor (possibly coupled with BOZ' s idea) is quite legitimate. As to edit warring, is isn't continuing (a la Quicksilver, where I attempt to discuss). The installation of a mentor helps prevent any edit warring (and can protect me, when others are being unreasonable). In the main, there are in fact almost no disagreements at any one time. What few there are (1-2 I suppose) can be discussed on Talk Pages and at Wikiproject Comics (this section sums things up , although I'd add progress has been made with David).


 * When there is a viable solution available, and it can be managed by an independent party with no agenda, I think it only fair to try it.


 * Asgardian (talk) 03:22, 31 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Steve, I'm sorry, but I find that to be rather narrow view that does not take into account much of has been presented. Again, the view that there's no hope. I find that to be rather defeatist. There has been considerable improvement, and I am willing to listen to those who do not have an agenda. This can be resolved amicably. Asgardian (talk) 01:46, 1 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Re: the emotive comment, so be it. The other editor did not handle himself well, and the conduct was rather immature. But, it even a light term such as "emotive" is not permitted, no problem. I apologize. That said, I have to say again Wikipedia doesn't really seem to have much provision for dealing with this kind of conduct (and there's been far worse, as I demonstrated).


 * I still maintain a mentor would be a good idea, as it has helped on the few articles in which there is debate. I will also say again that no one seems fussed about what happens at the DC Comics articles. I've done good work there on a number of characters. Perhaps a break from the Marvel Comics articles?


 * Regards Asgardian (talk) 02:27, 2 April 2010 (UTC)


 * @SS & KL: Since it looks like a long-term ban of some sort seems likely, I have a few questions and thoughts. Hopefully enforcement won't be an issue; I believe Asgardian has learned his lesson regarding using sockpuppets after User:Obsidianblackboard, and while he has edited logged out under his IP I don't believe he will use that to get around the ban. However, if that turns out not to be the case, then who will handle enforcement?  I believe that involved admins (which likely includes myself, Nightscream, Hiding, JGreb, Emperor, Doczilla, Jc37, and possibly any other admins associated with the Comics project) are not expected to handle enforcement for ArbCom, so does a need for enforcement go to an uninvolved admin, or does it come back to ArbCom?


 * While I think a year term is a good term to serve, I think if Asgardian were to show promise of improvement there should eventually be room to appeal. I am reminded of the case of Jack Merridew, who displayed good behavior on other wikis (Commons and I think other language Wikipedias) and used that to parlay an end to his indefinite block from ArbCom. Since Asgardian won't be able to edit on English Wikipedia to prove himself worthy, I think it would do him good to get some good hard work done on one or more of these other projects for several months, showing his ability to work with others and leave them with a feeling that it was worthwhile collaborating with him. I feel such an experience would be educational for him, and would show improvement on his part and give him some leverage to appeal a shortening of his ban, or at least for the ban to be successfully removed after one year. Would the decision be to have the ban expire automatically after one year, or would the end date be subject to being lengthened or shortened based on his subsequent behavior (if any) while banned? BOZ (talk) 23:07, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * @KnightLago: Great, thanks, that all sounds good. :) BOZ (talk) 17:32, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Asgardian, you need to understand that you cannot refute an idea by conflating it with something else. The content of an edit and the behavior you exhibit toward others are two different things. The fact that I supported your the content of your edit on Beyonce is completely separate, and irrelevant, to the incivility and edit warring you engaged in. Yes, you spoke on that Talk Page with the others, but you did so while you were reverting. This is a fact, yet you insist again on referring to it as an "erroneous assumption" on my part. Such edit warring is not permitted. Why can't you understand this? And you continued to use the "emotive" refrain again during that as well, and continue to defend your use of inappropriate comments, even here in this arbitration case, while complaining about it in others. It is not that others did not consider suggestions like the one BOZ offerered; it's that they may have decided that this stone deafness, arbitrary application of terminology (KnightLago's comment is not "objective"? How?) and inability to play by consistent rules on your part shows that those suggestions won't work. Nightscream (talk) 03:07, 2 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Template
1) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
2) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Analysis of evidence
Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis

Template

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

General discussion

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Fairplay; transparency and responsibility
I believe these three traits cover everything my proposed solution below will encompass.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
2) {text of Proposed principle}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact
I have presented my case, and can only reinterate that many things on Wikipedia are a matter of interpretation. What may be a breach of a Guideline to one editor may not seem so to another, and doesn't account for the fact that there may be multiple breaches everywhere daily and so on. Wikipedia also encourages bold edits, but again to what degree is the contentious issue. Civility is also a nebulous area with a variety of subjective opinions about what is and isn't appropriate. Some take more offence, some less. Some read a tone into a sentence that may or may not be there. I have admitted fault in this area for comments made several years ago, but do not believe that I have trangressed since.

Some conflict with other editors was inevitable, given that I am a frequent editor and often edit popular articles that attract interest. Obviously, as more and more fans gravitate to said articles, the greater the chance that there will be a difference of opinion. Although I believe Wikipedia still needs to create better and more efficient ways of dealing with said conflict, my proposed solution below will help me with this and the abovementioned factors.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
2) {text of proposed finding of fact}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Proposed remedies
I would be happy to have a mentor, who checks in with me on a periodic basis. It could be once a week, once a fortnight or whatever is acceptable for a willing party. This person could query my edits and place reminders if I have been remiss in some area (eg. not completing an edit summary). If satisfied with my performance and response to feedback, then after a period of six months the mentor could report back and advise all is well and the matter is closed. If not, then they may recommend further action.

A system like this has three advantages:

1. - It helps "keep me on the rails"

2. - It does not commit a fellow editor to mentoring on a daily basis

3. - It also protects me from any gameplaying or efforts to solcit an edit war. If another party is attempting to take advantage of my "probation" or does not wish to discuss an issue and keeps making blind reverts (likely at some point on a Marvel article), I can raise the issue with my mentor who can intercede as an uninvolved party. Not so much to come down on my side, but to force the other party to come to the mediation table and discuss the issue.

On a final note, I was hoping Tenebrae would be present for some comment on this matter as we've had a meeting of the minds, and I no longer have issues with this editor. I think we've both learnt a great deal and his contributions to Wikipedia (particularly the biographical articles) have been invaluable.

Other suggestions regarding the proposal would be welcome. I believe it to be viable, and while a form of probation is not out and out punishment, as I believe that there have been some circumstances (largely editor conduct) that have muddied the waters.

Thank you. Asgardian (talk) 23:46, 26 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
2) {text of proposed remedy}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
2) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1) {text of Proposed principle}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
2) {text of Proposed principle}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1) {text of proposed finding of fact}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
2) {text of proposed finding of fact}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

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

Template
1) The previous sanction, which closed on December 3, 2007, instituted an editing restriction for one year. He was limited to one revert per page per week (excepting obvious vandalism), and was required to discuss any content reversions on the page's talk page.

Throughout the year, he was blocked several times. The first, for 24 hours, came the very same month. The following month, a 72-hour block was extended to one week for attempted block-evasion by use of IP. He was blocked for a week in April 2008, and then for another week in October 2008.

The numerous blocks indicated unchanged behavior, as does the fact that we are here again. These fact demonstrate that sanctions on this second time must perforce be stronger.

In addition to establishing the same revert restriction as in the previous sanction, plus limiting edits to one paragraph at a time and insisting on full, proper edit summaries, this sanction should be extended from one year to two years.

In addition, a volunteer admin — preferably a member of WikiProject Comics who is familiar with the subject matter and Asgardian's history — would serve as a metaphoric probation officer, to whom editors could turn during edit wars. This admin would have veto power over Asgardian's edits, and could, if needed, temporarily spot-block Asgardian for a cooling-off period.

If no such volunteer is available, then a ban may be in order. One person, year after year, has taken away enormous amounts of time and energy from perhaps a dozen other volunteers. This drain of volunteer resources is neither fair nor right, and the previous year-long sanction appears to have had no effect. -- Tenebrae (talk) 03:18, 28 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
2) {text of proposed remedy}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
2) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others: