Main case page (Talk) — Evidence (Talk) — Workshop (Talk) — Proposed decision (Talk)

Case clerks: Seddon (Talk) & AlexandrDmitri (Talk) Drafting arbitrators: KnightLago (Talk) & Steve Smith (Talk)

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

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

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

Watchlist all case pages: 1, 2, 3, 4

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

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

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

Involved parties

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

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Statement by Nightscream

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

Response by Asgardian

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

I have to say that I find this development baffling and unfortunate. Nightscream would seem to have issue with the fact that the 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 Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Asgardian, I don't understand the intensity of Nightscream's claims given that we have not edited together on the same article - Red Hulk - for months. What makes this even more bizarre is that Nightscream actually supported me just days ago on an edit at Beyonce Knowles ([4]); supported me on the relevant Talk Page ([5]) and then after I thanked him ([6]) for the support acknowledged the thanks: [7]. 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]

Response to Statement by BOZ

I'd like to respond to BOZ's comments. He had been a voice of reason throughout this entire process, and I thank him for his kind words and impartiality. I acknowledged BOZ ([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 Juggernaut who was making blind reverts, but thanks to the assistance of two other editors we've reached a nice compromise, which hopefully everyone will endorse, thereby ending the issue ([16]; [17]).

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

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

Additional information

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

Although I am happy to take full responsibility for past edits from 2007 and 2008 (although I think even then there was a degree of "gangpiling"), I would like to state that this was 2007 - 2008, which is now sometime ago. Much has changed since then and I actively attempt solutions to issues, such as on the aforementioned mentioned article Juggernaut, which looks to have been resolved nicely ([21]). If there is even a hint of a potential conflict, I now report it to another senior user so that that it can be monitored ([22]; [23]). Please also note although I still have some issues with David A's editing style, I continue to try and discuss and offer compromises rather than blindly revert ([24]).

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

Statement by BOZ

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

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

I made a suggestion not long ago (I forget to whom, and when) that perhaps the best way to deal with all the problems that have arisen over Asgardian and other editors interacting badly is to approach ArbCom to seek a sort of mentorship for Asgardian, to help him out when he finds himself in dispute with other editors. This might take the work of more than one experienced, uninvolved editor (who had best be well prepared before wading into this situation!), who knows the dispute resolution system well and can keep an eye out for disputes when they arise, and point him and the other editors in the right direction. I don't know how practical, or even possible, such an arrangement is, but I'd like to consider adding that to the table as an alternative on the indefinite block proposal. If this arrangement is attempted and does not work, then I assume we come back here looking for some long-term blocks, or appropriate topic bans. BOZ (talk) 06:26, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[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 Thor, Galactus, Ms. Marvel, and Juggernaut, to come up with examples off the top of my head, are another story. I think it would be good for him to focus on articles on which he has not had a long history of fighting over content. I find that I am not alone in giving up editing "Asgardian's articles", echoing Peregrine Fisher's comments below, because it is frustrating to try to edit when it feels like most of your contributions to an article will be dismissively removed. BOZ (talk) 16:15, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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]

Temporary injunction (none)

Final decision

Principles

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.