Case Opened on 15:29, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Case Closed on 01:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Please do not edit this page directly unless you wish to become a participant in this case. Only add a statement here after the case has begun if you are named as a party; otherwise, your statement may be placed on the talk page, and will be read in full. Evidence, no matter who can provide it, is very welcome at /Evidence. Evidence is more useful than comments.

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 and bans as needed, but it 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.

Initiated by Hiding Talk at 16:20, 31 October 2007 (UTC) reply

• Asgardian ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Tenebrae ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I seriously think this situation is spiralling into a dangerous path. Of the two editors, User:Asgardian appears to me to have a reluctance to engage in debate and to respect consensus, preferring instead to edit war, as seen in user's block log. The editor has been advised as to the nature of Wikipedia, [1] and their own behaviour, [2], but lately the editor has taken to blanking messages on their talk page, [3], [4] so it is hard to judge how to communicate with the user and what is taken in. I think the situation has now escalated to the point that User:Tenebrae has taken it upon himself to police Asgardian's edits, which is fuelling the edit wars. I appreciate there could be other dispute resolution methods open, but I am not encouraged as to how productive they would be. There has also been evidence of incivility, examples of which can be seen at [5], [6], [7], [8] , [9], [10] and [11]. I think this requires arbitration to sort out how best to proceed, since the situation is now at the stage where it is causing disruption across a number of articles and creating a hostile atmosphere. For me the situation is now reminiscent of that which led to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Dyslexic Agnostic, and intervention is needed to untangle the mess and devise remedies. Hiding Talk 16:20, 31 October 2007 (UTC) reply

• Asgardian has asked us to look at the last few days. As I posted above, this link [12] is from the last few days. There is no sign at all that this hostility is going to cease without outside influence. Personally I would see revert paroles, civility paroles and tendentious editing warnings as possible outcomes. I'd also point out the possible legal threat in an edit made back in July, [13], as well as Asgardian's recent use of edit summaries and the minor edit button, [14], [15], [16], [17] something I've explained a couple of times, see [18], [19], [20] and [21]. I think there is evidence here that consensus decisions are ignored, something else that may need examining. Hiding Talk 21:48, 2 November 2007 (UTC) reply

The concern is appreciated, but you've jumped the gun again. Look at the last few days. A compromise was reached on Awesome Android, and I'm going to post in Talk I've actually found a nice extra for the article. It gels with Tenebrae's request for a frontal image, so there should be no issue there. He (I assume Tenebrae's a he - if not, apologies) kindly took on board a point I made re: a fact in the Awesome Android article, and I backed him on a decision made on the Vision article. I've also made some suggestons re: the Speed Demon article, although curiously no one has responded so we can settle the finicky points. As for Blood Brothers, that too can be solved (locked for an unusually long time?). I believe Tenebra has acknowledged the need for a Fictional Character Biography, and I am willing to give way on the date-method of writing the Publication History, so long as the style is not too conversational and has the odd break if there's a large amount of information.

I openly admit I've clashed with Tenebrae, but I also respect him as I can see from his Edit History that he does try to keep some of the articles up to a high standard. If we can all maintian civility, then all things are possible. I'd just like some of the other users -such as Wryspy - to remember that I'm one of the few that will actually sit there for a few hours and rewrite articles that badly needed work. No mean feat (see Thanos). Asgardian 06:46, 1 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Further to this, I would like to respond to JGreb's rather emotive claim that I have lied. This is false, and frankly, inflammatory and probably grounds for legal action on some front if so inclined (I'm not). He and few others need to be careful about what they put down in writing, as such statements are at best careless and at worst slander. I'm getting better with the Edit Summaries, and many compromises have been reached (a la Awesome Android, which now looks sharp). Asgardian 02:14, 3 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Unfortunately, it seems I must point out the less than objective conduct of another user, this time an administrator. I respect Hiding but he is not being objective, or fair. His comment that There is no sign at all that this hostility is going to cease without outside influence is a nonsense. A good compromise was reached on the Awesome Android article and I backed Tenebrae on the Vision article. How can this been seen as hostile?

I made the comment Hiding linked in response to Tenebrae's comment, which was not constructive. Another poster actually asked why he did not simply fix the issue, which I did. I also find it a tad weak for Hiding to be trawling for proof to support his case, when he and Tenebrae actually had an edit war themselves on the article Blood Brothers. Once again, it is a case of "people in glass houses". There are many, many instances of snideness and outright rudeness from several other users, and they too need to improve. Asgardian 20:37, 3 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Tenebrae also cites an ex-user User:CovenantD. Not a good choice - this is the person that called me an "asshole" and was duly rebuked by another user, who then provided via links examples of CovenantD's poor conduct. It's all there on his Talk Page. Asgardian 20:43, 3 November 2007 (UTC) reply

My apology for the late reply; I've been away for a few days specifically because of the agitation created by User:Asgardian, which I'm finding more and more debilitating. I appreciate his positive comments above, yet they fall into a pattern of disruption and conciliation. The last time this happened, I expressed wariness that he would remain non-combative and more willing to accept consensus and not edit-war so often. The conciliation never lasts. Asgardian began fighting with other editors and inflating the value of his own participation from his very first month on Wikipedia, when he began impugning the motives of User:CovenantD here. When his talk-page responses to other editors aren't combative, they're evasive or appear to include deliberately misinterpreted versions of what an editor actually said. I've tried to be supportive of him, going back to this entry on his User Talk page, which he has frequently erased rather than archived, and have been met in response with accusations of being patronizing. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. I think arbitration is called for, and I wholeheartedly endorse it.

I would add I don't "police" Asgardian's edits in the sense of going to his User Contributions page and going down a list; I act on his edits the same as anyone's on my watchlist or occasional other articles I run across. Without going to his User Contributions page to check, I'm certain there are articles Asgardian has edited that I've never seen or touched. -- Tenebrae 21:34, 2 November 2007 (UTC) reply

In response to Asgardian's Nov. 3 assertions, I would simply suggest reading multiple editors' statements at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics/Request for comment/Asgardian#Comments.-- Tenebrae 04:59, 3 November 2007 (UTC) reply

I'm afraid I need to ask for a few more days. I hate to cause any delays, but as you can see by my contribs history, I've been away due to work demands that should ease up by, I believe, the weekend. I apologize for the real-world intrusion; please believe it can't be helped. And thank you for your additional patience. -- Tenebrae 04:44, 15 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Arbitrators' opinions on hearing this matter (4/0/0/0)

• Accept. To look at editor conduct not content issues. FloNight ♥♥♥ 19:15, 3 November 2007 (UTC) reply
• Accept. Kirill 00:14, 4 November 2007 (UTC) reply
• Accept. Paul August ☎ 16:08, 7 November 2007 (UTC) reply
• Accept. Charles Matthews 16:10, 7 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Temporary injunction (none)

Final decision Information

All numbering based on /Proposed decision (vote counts and comments are there as well)

Decorum

1) Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably and calmly in their interactions with other users, to keep their cool when editing, and to avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. Unseemly conduct—including, but not limited to, personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, trolling, harassment, and gaming the system—is prohibited. Users should not respond to such behavior in kind; concerns regarding the actions of other users should be brought up in the appropriate forums.

Passed 9 to 0, 01:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Editorial process

2) Wikipedia works by building consensus through the use of polite discussion. The dispute resolution process is designed to assist consensus-building when normal talk page communication has not worked. Sustained editorial conflict is not an appropriate method of resolving disputes.

Passed 9 to 0, 01:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Asgardian

1) Asgardian ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has frequently engaged in sustained edit-warring ( [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36]), for which he has repeatedly been blocked ( [37]), and due to which a number of articles have been protected ( [38]).

Passed 9 to 0, 01:53, 3 December 2007 (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.

Asgardian restricted

1.1) Asgardian ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is subject to an editing restriction for one year. He is limited to one revert per page per week (excepting obvious vandalism), and is required to discuss any content reversions on the page's talk page. Should he exceed this limit or fail to discuss a content reversion, he may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling below.

Passed 7 to 0, 01:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

{[Arbitration standard provisions}}

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.