Main case page (Talk) — Evidence (Talk) — Workshop (Talk) — Proposed decision (Talk) Case clerks: Seddon (Talk) & AlexandrDmitri (Talk) Drafting arbitrators: KnightLago (Talk) & Steve Smith (Talk)

Wikipedia Arbitration
About arbitration Talk Arbitration policy (CU/OS) Guide to arbitration Noticeboard + Talk Search archived proceedings Ban appeals Report
Open proceedings All open requests Case requests Clarification and Amendment requests Arbitrator motion requests Enforcement requests
Active sanctions Contentious topics (Log) General sanctions Editor sanctions
Arbitration Committee Discuss + Contact Members Procedures Elections Talk History Clerks + Talk Clerk procedures Conflict of interest reports
Audit Talk Statistics Talk Reports (pre-2016)
Track related changes
t e

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

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

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

Please do not edit this page directly unless you are either 1) an Arbitrator, 2) an Arbitration Clerk, or 3) adding yourself to this case. Statements on this page are original comments provided when the Committee was initially requested to Arbitrate this page (at

subpage.

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

Once the case is closed, editors may add to the

.

• Nightscream (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
• Asgardian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• BOZ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Tenebrae (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• Asgardian
• BOZ
• Tenebrae

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

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

Over the past few years, many members of the community have attempted unsuccessfully to resolve the issue of

, make it clear that the only way to prevent future abuse by him is to ban him permanently from Wikipedia. While I would not be averse to allowing him to return in say, a year, I would only favor this if he openly discusses the inappropriate nature of the behavior I have described here, directly answer questions about it, and agree to abandon that behavior, sincerely, and without further evasion. Barring this, he should be permanently blocked from editing. Evidence of his policy violations, both during edit disputes, and when his behavior is called into question, is copious, and will be furnished by me (and presumably others) when the case is opened.

Response by Asgardian

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

I have to say that I find this development baffling and unfortunate. Nightscream would seem to have issue with the fact that the Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Asgardian didn't go the way he intended. In fact, I can simply address his very general and non-specific points raised above by asking all to refer to the Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Asgardian, where I was also supported by one editor in particular (Scott Free, who noted that there was an element of "gangpiling" ([1]). The RFC also shows examples of some of the issues I have had to deal with in regards to some of the more inexperienced editors.

Further to this, Nightscream persisted at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Asgardian, but the focus has become about him and his conduct, which seems to be a driving desire to see myself somehow "punished". This is highlighted here [2], where WhatamIdoing states

"Nightscream, I'm finding that your comment above:

You don't remove them against policy, find a source months later, and then say it "resolves" the issue. It may resolve the the need for sources, but that does not mean that it resolves the issue of an editor violating policy months prior...

is fairly telling.

First, anything that's well and truly resolved in the mainspace really is entirely resolved as far as building the encyclopedia is concerned (i.e., why we're all here, right?). Apologies and self-abasement and promises to do better and so forth about the

imperfect process

don't change either a jot or a tittle in the mainspace.

It seems to me that if you (and others) didn't have such a fraught history with Asgardian, then this incident really would have been "resolved" as soon as a source was produced. The fact that you want something more to be done, while acknowledging that there is nothing else to be done in the mainspace on that point, indicates to me the depth of the interpersonal dysfunction."

This whole section ([3]) seems to have become about trying to educate Nightscream (who is an administrator) about Wikipedia. As I noted in the

. This then begs the question, why is this request being introduced?

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

I've made peace with many of the editors I have disagreed with in the past (see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Asgardian), and am now collaborating with many of them on other issues (eg.[8]). I am also even now trying to compromise with a fairly inexperienced editor (who was also recently banned for attempting blind reversions with a sockpuppet on my edits): [9]; [10] as opposed to just edit warring.

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

I bear Nightscream no ill will and would just like to see this resolved. I enjoy editing, and have made many, many productive edits in recent years (a very recent example being the many hours I've put in here [11], as the sources can only be of benefit).

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

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

I am still, however, curious as to why there is a sudden request for a "permanent ban" - or any kind of sanction for that matter - given I have been making every effort to work with others (numerous examples) and better articles (numerous articles). It goes back to my point about there being no "smoking gun", although there still being an insistence (see my earlier comments with the link) for something to be done. I am also concerned about what Scott Free called "gangpiling" ([12]) over perceived - and not necessarily actual - issues. This is the third attempt for a sanction against myself, and it is becoming rather stressful. I'm happy to provide information to independent parties, or alternatively, simply do so if this is adjourned to the Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Asgardian which has not closed.

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

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

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

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

• I'd like to respond to BOZ's comments. He had been a voice of reason throughout this entire process, and I thank him for his kind words and impartiality. I acknowledged BOZ ([13]) had a point when discussing editing issues, and also admitted fault for previous mishaps (albeit from some time ago) at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Asgardian. As I said above, these days there is really only conflict when dealing with inexperienced editors. I pointed this out to BOZ, and he agreed : ([14]). Scott Free also supports this view ([15]) and stated:

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

That said, while 90% of what I edit is a non-issue, I do require assistance with the other 10% from time to time. There were issues with one editor at

).

The only other burning issue is getting some assistance from time to time with DavidA. Being completely honest, it is more likely I will have conflict with this person more than any other due to his conduct (which in fact I have just had to report at Wikiquette ([18]) and the fact that he makes blind reverts and wipes valid information ([19]; [20]). This is where the only real edit warring involving myself occurs, and not by choice. Perhaps the best thing to do in future is just ask for 3rd party opinions on the relevant Talk Pages.

I probably should have done this all along (a lession I've just learned when dealing with inexperienced editors who are more fans than "Wiki scholars", such as at

, where several editors backed a poorly worded paragraph with the wrong focus and made a few threats). I'd also be receptive to the idea of BOZ mediating/mentoring when this person is involved, although of course he may not wish to. DavidA's contributions also appear to be dropping away so it may be a non-issue over time.

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

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

Although I am happy to take full responsibility for past edits from 2007 and 2008 (although I think even then there was a degree of "gangpiling"), I would like to state that this was 2007 - 2008, which is now sometime ago. Much has changed since then and I actively attempt solutions to issues, such as on the aforementioned mentioned article

).

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

Regarding the BOZ examples, I don't see that as being necessary given a good resolution was reached at Juggernaut; that I recently co-collaborated and improved Thor and admitted I made a factual mistake ([25]) and am supportive of a new development ([26]); actually tried to be the voice of reason between other parties during a hours-long edit war at Galactus ([27]) and do little more than polite tweaks at present to the mentioned Ms. Marvel article ([28]). The days when anyone's edits are "dismissively removed" as BOZ puts it are long behind me. That said, I have taken serious note of the fact that he feels this way.

I will say too that I have noticed that it appears to be some of the

for more discussion.

Finally, I am still concerned about Nightscream's view that I be "punished" somehow. I noted this post ([29]), which I found to be emotive and disappointing, as it states it is a character issue. This is not true. I respect Wikipedia and my fellow editors, and wish to continue editing. I have admitted fault and will accept criticism, but not attacks.

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

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

It's been brought up by a few people that maybe this case should have gone to

. I'm assuming we've been down that road plenty of times already, but if it's ArbCom's decision that AN/I is the way to go, then I will have to recommend that Nightscream approach from that angle.

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

I made a suggestion not long ago (I forget to whom, and when) that perhaps the best way to deal with all the problems that have arisen over Asgardian and other editors interacting badly is to approach ArbCom to seek a sort of mentorship for Asgardian, to help him out when he finds himself in dispute with other editors. This might take the work of more than one experienced, uninvolved editor (who had best be well prepared before wading into this situation!), who knows the dispute resolution system well and can keep an eye out for disputes when they arise, and point him and the other editors in the right direction. I don't know how practical, or even possible, such an arrangement is, but I'd like to consider adding that to the table as an alternative on the indefinite block proposal. If this arrangement is attempted and does not work, then I assume we come back here looking for some long-term blocks, or appropriate topic bans. BOZ (talk) 06:26, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to clarify that I am definitely not opposing, nor supporting any type of block or ban - I am neutral on that idea, and leave that up to the wisdom of others. My suggestion is merely that; if Asgardian is not to be put on long-term block, then what I mention above is what I would like to see. BOZ (talk) 12:38, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Asgardian, I feel, does his best work on the articles of less popular comic book characters - they are rarely edited by anyone else, and he can do a good job without getting into a dispute with anyone. Articles such as

]

Clerk notes

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

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

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

1)

.

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

Editorial process

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

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

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

within Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

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

4) Editors are expected to use

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

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

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

, is prohibited.

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

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

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

1) Asgardian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 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 ([30]) for edit-warring. Asgardian was also the subject of a December 2009 request for comment, which led to this arbitration case.

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

2) Since 2007, Asgardian has continued to engage in sustained edit-warring ([31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37], [38], [39], [40], [41], [42], [43], [44], [45], [46], [47], [48], [49], [50], [51], [52], [53], [54], [55], [56], [57], [58], [59], [60], [61], [62], [63], [64], [65], [66], [67], [68], [69], [70], [71], [72], [73], [74], [75], [76], [77], [78], [79], [80], [81], [82], [83], [84], [85], [86], [87], [88], [89], [90], [91], [92], [93], [94], [95], [96], [97], [98], [99], [100], [101], [102], [103], [104], [105], [106], [107], [108], [109], [110], [111], [112], [113], [114], [115], [116]) across multiple articles. The edit-warring has continued during this case ([117], [118], [119], [120], [121], [122], [123]).

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

3) Asgardian has used edit summaries that do not accurately or wholly sum up his edits ([124], [125]), or failed to use edit summaries while making controversial edits ([126], [127], [128]).

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

4) Asgardian has made uncivil remarks, including commenting on other editors, instead of content ([129], [130], [131], [132], [133], [134], [135], [136], [137]).

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

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.

1) Asgardian is banned from Wikipedia for one year.

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

The topic ban from

) fail to adhere to Wikipedia editing standards in the area previously covered by the topic ban. Appeal of such a reinstatement would follow the normal arbitration enforcement appeals process. After one year from the date of passage of this motion, if the topic ban has not been reinstated or any reinstatements have been successfully appealed, the topic ban will be lifted.

Passed 7 to 0 by motion at 14:47, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Any block, restriction, ban, or sanction performed under the authorisation of a remedy for this case must be logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log, not here.