Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Asgardian

Statement by NuclearWarfare
I am just idly asking, but is there any reason why this cannot be handled by an uninvolved administrator issuing an indefinite block if they feel that is appropriate, and defending it at ANI if necessary? NW ( Talk ) 23:51, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Comment from Master&Expert
I was about to ask the same thing as NuclearWarfare above. I think if the community has lost patience with Aagardian, it may be worth discussing over at one of the noticeboards.  Master&amp;  Expert ( Talk ) 04:54, 14 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I came here because when I asked User:Newyorkbrad about banning, he informed me that the two paths that could be utilized for banning would be to either start a discussion at AN/I, or bring an arbitration case. Since Asgardian has already been the focus of a number of AN/I threads (a couple of which I participated in), which only served to perpetuate the problem, much as the recent RfC, it seemed reasonable to take the matter here. I have prepared a detailed summary of the problem, and its focuses not only on the precipitating policy violations, but also the behavior Asgardian exhibits when his edits or his behavior is disputed, including the counterclaims that I (correctly) anticipated Asgardian would employ, such as the ad hominem "grudge" claim, the non sequiturs about Red Hulk, the Beyonce Knowles matter, the inconsistency in his statements, his reliance on one outsider editor who seemed to indicate that he didn't read the RfC in depth, while dismissing the 18 long-tenured editors who wrote or endorsed summaries against him (8 of which are administrators), etc.


 * I was prepared to post it here before I saw that the instructions indicate that this is not the place to prove the case, but to merely summarize it succinctly, and that the evidence in question is to be presented after the case is opened, which I intend to do. If I have not adequately followed the instructions or procedures for situations like this, or provided enough information for a decision on your part, I would be more than willing to address any other clarifications or suggestions that anyone has. Nightscream (talk) 22:34, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Specifically, the most recent block applied to Asgardian by neutral admin Xavexgoem (and retracted by said admin) was as a result of an AN/I thread. I agree with Nightscream that AN/I is not likely to solve this, and has been tried more than once before. I need to get my thoughts together before I go into detail. BOZ (talk) 04:18, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Comment from Off2riorob
I came across this user by mistake at the Beyonce article, he inserted a coatracking addition attaching the Libyan bombing on to the Beyonce Knowles biography, she had preformed a concert for Gadaffi's son and his addition was imo and others opinion excessive coatracking, he reverted until I asked for a third opinion and some editors commented there and yet he would not listen, he began again saying he was compromising with this and that and was simply reverting to his favoured position again which was against the RFC comments and against consensus on the talkpage,  his editing and repeating reverts brought me to give in and take the article off my watchlist, other editors began also to remove his preferred version, amongst all this I found him to not care about wikipedia process such as request for comment, what is the point in requesting a comment when the other editor in the dispute refuses to acknowledge the comments, all in all an editing issue the type that moves other editors to just move on and give up. Off2riorob (talk) 20:24, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Slightly-involved statement by Daedalus969
I don't think an arbcom case is necessary. All we need is the thread I created at ANI for the topic ban and editing restrictions.—  Dæ dαlus Contribs 04:38, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Peregrine Fisher
Asgardian is quite the character. He likes his articles a certain way, and to my knowledge, will not stop until they are that way. Like Off2riorob mentions, he can take on a (very) large number of editors and best them all. All you can do is take the article off your watchlist. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 07:13, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Note,
I would like to scratch out my comment. I mistakenly commented in the section above thinking it was the case on Proofreader77. I have no idea how I missed this mistake.... —  Dæ dαlus Contribs 04:28, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Oops! :) I think it was vague enough that no one questioned it. BOZ (talk) 13:32, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Comments by jc37

 * | My statement last time.
 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics/Request for comment/Asgardian

There have been MANY discussions concerning questions and concerns about Asgardian. Including many many many other less formal discussions. (As noted by others.) Asgardian has had many many contentions concerning his editing choices, and how he interacts with others.

I haven't been active in the last couple months, so I have no comment on the very recent issues which appear to have been the impetus for this arb request yet. But if it turns out to be like similar issues in the past, I would endorse community banning. This has just been too much disruption for too long.

All this said, due to past interactions between Nightscream and Asgardian, and later, between Nightscream and myself, and others; I would agree with the argument that Nightscream should not be considered an "uninvolved" admin in this and may indeed have a personal bias with regards to Asgardian. I merely note this to attempt to place his comments in context. - jc37 03:11, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

What's changed?
What's changed since the last time I asked the arbitration committee to step in? Apart from the minds of the arbitrators? Not a jot. Yet again a bad situation on Wikipedia has been allowed to worsen because, I don;t why any more. I'm done with this place, you don't support your admin's at all when they are knocking the door down begging for help. Hiding T 23:08, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The case has moved forward. Cutno (talk) 23:38, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The case is scheduled to move forward to a proposed decision within the next few days. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:32, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Amendment request: Asgardian (September 2015)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by Asgardian (talk) at 06:56, 15 September 2015‎ (UTC)


 * Case or decision affected

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
 * (initiator)

Statement by Asgardian

 * I was banned for edit warring and then ban evasion, but was eventually restored after an off-site discussion by the Committee . A condition of the re-instatement was that I do not edit any Marvel Comics articles. I feel this restriction is no longer necessary and would respectfully ask that it be lifted. I have long since learned that edit-warring is pointless and that discussion is always best. I even have a few suggestions about editing comic articles and how best to improve Wikipedia overall. For your consideration.

Asgardian (talk) 06:53, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Statement by NE Ent
Reviewing Asgardian contributions I note the following: Conclusion: recommend committee remove ban as requested. NE Ent 00:27, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Not a lot of contributions, but the ones that were were mostly drama free
 * Demonstrated ability to work reasonably well with others on Talk:Creature_of_Havoc; would like to see further improvement (e.g. In the first instance, how can we be expected to take you seriously when you can't be bothered even signing your posts? is unnecessary snark, but not atypical for the a talk page discussion (unfortunately). But I admittedly have a high standard for "ideal" editor behavior.

Statement by John Carter

 * Knowing virtually nothing about the dispute itself, I would support lifting the sanction. Review of behavior above doesn't seem to me to be too bad, and the editor has admitted his tactics were less than effective, and that he has learned from previous experience. John Carter (talk) 01:27, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Asgardian: Clerk notes

 * This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Asgardian: Arbitrator views and discussion

 * I'm open to considering suspending this topic ban in the same manner we've done a couple of times recently. I would like to hear other editors' views though. Thryduulf (talk) 12:23, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
 * A topic ban suspension for six months would be fine by me; seems like a sensible solution. Yunshui 雲 水 10:08, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Motion: Asgardian
The topic ban from Marvel Comics portion of Asgardian's unblock condition is suspended for a period of one year. During the period of suspension, this topic ban may be reinstated by any uninvolved administrator as an arbitration enforcement action should fail to adhere to Wikipedia editing standards in the area previously covered by the topic ban. Appeal of such a reinstatement would follow the normal arbitration enforcement appeals process. After one year from the date of passage of this motion, if the topic ban has not been reinstated or any reinstatements have been successfully appealed, the topic ban will be lifted.
 * Enacted: Jim Car ter  13:45, 28 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) We might as well vote instead of talking about voting. The standard suspension is for one year so I am just rolling with it. -- Guerillero  &#124;  Parlez Moi  04:13, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
 * 2) Courcelles (talk) 04:34, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
 * 3) Yunshui 雲 水  06:46, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
 * 4) Thryduulf (talk) 11:20, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
 * 5) Seraphimblade Talk to me 16:08, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
 * 6)  Salvio Let's talk about it! 10:30, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
 * 7) Doug Weller (talk) 12:29, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose


 * Abstain