Ok, since the goal is to try to stay within a word limit, I'll leave out the links/evidence for now. (And noting that this may likely be a more than a spoonful of beans.)
First, as has been noted by others, User:CovenantD is another "involved" user, and should probably also be a party of this arbitration, but isn't listed since the user seems to be currently inactive (since August).
This has been a long time coming.
I think it's mostly a question of Ownership of articles, poor Wikiquette, lack of honest communication, and how that's all causing genuine disruption.
User:Asgardian has a long history of less than communicativeness in response to his edits. Miscomprehesion, misunderstanding, misdirection, and subterfuge. It's a tactic that's worked rather well for him, actually. If he can continually extend a discussion until he "wears out" those in the discussion, they'll eventually leave, and he'll revert to his preferred version, with seemingly no repercussions. While User:Hiding has tried several ways in order to keep Asgardian a positive member of the Wikipedian community (Probation, article suspension, article protection, blocking, etc.), all that seems to have occurred is that the user has learned that if gives confusing answers, or answers to questions not asked, which confuses those on the page, and just general obfuscation, he can always come back and revert/merge his "preferred" version at a later time, in the hopes that no one is watching. I think it's comparable to Speedy criteria G4 about article recreation. Unless a new consensus is formed, articles should probably not be recreated. Same with Asgardian's edits. Hiding attempted to have this discussed on the Community Noticeboard, but was informed by User:Tony Sideaway that Asgardian needed to have a block history. The trouble with that is that the reversions are all in slow motion, so 3RR typically doesn't happen, and there usually is no point for "punitive blocks" after-the-fact. So instead, we've been protecting the pages in question in order to bring the disputers to the table. However (for one example), the moment I unprotected Vision (Marvel comics), with a request to continue discussion, Asgardian immediately reinserted his preferred version.
A rather telling example can be found in the edit history and talk page of Whizzer. In order to deal with that, the concerns were broken up into sections, which were discussed, and then I eventually closed each (when agreed to by both parties, or unopposed). And then Asgardian re-inserted his "preferred version" once again, even contrary to sections which he agreed with.
There are also issues with WP:BITE, in dealing with the "average" editor, or IP editor.
I've said previously that I feel that the user makes some good edits, but having to constantly watch him is simply becoming problematic. Especially due to his lack of (or lack of accuracy in descriptiveness in) edit summaries.
This leads to the other two. Just as Asgardian tends to be pushing his POV, at times, contrary to general MoS, or comics MoS, so two have the other two. It's not a matter of who's "right", it's that the three seemed to constantly be in some state of "war" of opinion over who or what's "right". Despite what Tenebrae said below, I believe he's stepped forward to offer to "police" Asgardian's edits nearly every time that Hiding has proposed probation, or something similar. Edit summaries (and lack thereof), and mass reversion/refatoring/editing have just created much confusion.
I think that "something" needs to happen. Temporary measures just don't seem to be effective. These are long term issues, and likely need a long term solution. - jc37 11:47, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I completely support/agree with Neil's characterisations of the users and the disputes in his (16:14, 4 November 2007) statement below. Though I doubt that 1RR will work, based on the slow motion of things, it's probably a step in the right direction. - jc37 21:28, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've been asked to comment as I have attempted briefly to mediate some of these issues before, and have blocked Asgardian on two occasions for edit warring. As Jc37, though, I will wait for all directly involved parties to comment first before commenting fully. I will say that I believe some sort of arbitration involvement is merited, as both parties' behaviour has not changed through less formal measures, and the situation is getting worse, not better. Neil ☎ 09:29, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay. Asgardian is knowledgeable on the topic he edits. He seems to assume, however, that this means he is always more knowledgeable than everyone else, and this overrides any kind of consensus. He is patient, pleasant, and polite, and will wait out any protections without complaining. This politeness and patience is what has allowed him to continue to tendentiously edit over a lengthy period of time without any real action being taken to date. Any revisions to an article he does not agree with are reverted, often under misleading edit summaries marked as minor. The incivility exhibited by Tenebrae is born out of frustration, I believe, rather than any malice. Asgardian will agree to amendments suggested on the talk page, and then revert back to his preferred version a day or two later. There is an ownership issue underlying this whole case. All other forms of intervention (including administrative blocks, page protections, and an RFC) have failed to derail his editing patterns. A firm and straightforward set of injunctions - with defined limits (1RR?) to reduce the capacity for edit warring and ignoring of consensus - is required. Neil ☎ 16:14, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In looking at this, there are problems on both sides:
- Both have edited using less than helpful edit summaries. Though with Tenebrae this tends to be the exception, not the rule.
- Both have edited articles where they changed items through out the artile in one go.
- Asgardian has lied in edit summaries, both marking non-minor edits as minor, and cases like this [1] where he calls a blanket revert of others work a "slight tidy".
- Asgardian has also blindly reverted to the detriment of article.[2]
There is also a concern about how he phrases comments above an beyond his edit summaries:
- He has implied that other editors should start with suggesting changes on talk pages instead of actually editing articles.[3] This after his being reminded that blanket reverts should not be made, but that the concerns should be brought to the talk page.
- His posts also take a possessive tone.[4][5] Both of which would have been benign phrased as "I'll post some suggested reworks here (the talk page) later."
While I applaud Asgardian's willingness to take the time to work on article, and the knowledge of the subjects he brings to it. It's this possessiveness that he cannot seem to shake that is causing problems. Reverting ot remove the work of others that fixed links, grammar and spelling and brought an article into line with guidelines. Continuing to revert articles without discussion until they are either protected or multiple editors have to warn him. And comments from other editors that they avoid working on articles he's touched. Not because the articles are not in need of work, but to avoid the headache of having to fight tooth and nail to improve the article.
- J Greb 01:43, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to echo J Greb's concerns, first off. I have also noticed deceptive edit summaries from Asgardian, such as this non-minor edit removing sourced information [6], and have also been frustrated by his intractable determination at times that he's got the 'right version'. He can be engaged on talk pages, but it doesn't often work to ask, or to engage. It takes a lot of effort to get him into a consensus thinking mode. As J Greb notes above, people sometimes avoid Asgardian. I know I do at times. It's a Sisyphean effort sometimes to deal with changes to an article if Asgardian is there. A read through of the Awesome Android page finds about half a dozen editors speaking to Asgardian about his attitude for a period of a year, and he doeesn't seem to have learned from it.
As to Tenebrae, I have seen him discuss some recent frustrations with editors on Wikipedia, and he seems to find the fun being taken out of the project at times. However, he's responsive and cooperative on talk pages, regularly initiates and follows up on talk page conversations, and I have observed him to take the time to aid newer editors in fixing and editing pages. I'm inclined to find that Tenebrae's sarcasm in edit summaries is getting sharper and less 'jovial' as a result of increasing frustrations.
- ThuranX 13:59, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Having looked through the Request for Comment on this matter, it is clear to me that the underlying problem here is an absence of the ability to sit down and Discuss the issues involved in a calm manner. The subsequent edit warring (which has resulted in protections on Blood Brothers (comics) and Galactus) stems directly from this.
Therefore it is my belief that the Committee should look at the issues of user conduct here - unhelpful editing and edit warring, and act appropriately in order to prevent further disruption to the articles in question. However, the content issues of the dispute are, in my opinion, unsuitable for Arbitration at this time: I firmly believe that, if directed in the correct manner and through the correct channels, it would be reasonable to expect a compromise.
Anthøny 15:04, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is a slightly tweaked copy of things I already discussed with Asgardian and Tenebrae on their talk pages this weekend. I wasn't sure about weighing in with this at all because I wasn't sure what I could say that I haven't already said numerous times [7][8], but they both responded well to this and several people have asked me to add my two cents to this discussion.
At a glance, it probably looks like the situation jumped from a handful of reverts and right into arbitration. How could someone not already familiar with the history see what the big deal is? It's hard for anybody who has been involved in these recurring edit wars to be objective, but it has also proven to be hard for anybody who hasn't been involved to see the overall pattern of what's wrong. Things have vastly improved, but it's still a hassle for each of you and for a lot of other folks. Everyone has gotten so frustrated by all the skirmishing that it has kept them away from Wikipedia for periods of time, whether they've stayed away for days or, in at least one editor's case, months. People can have differences of opinion and even heated exchanges over them without escalation to another level, if they agree on ground rules.
I just asked Asgardian and Tenebrae: Realistically, what do you think will have to happen to keep these differences of opinion from leading to more blocks, more admin board notices, etc.? Tenebrae says more people need to step up and comment whereas Asgardian says he needs more civility from others.
Re: People stepping up and commenting. Actually, so many comments have been made at so many times that it would only take one person (or two opposing people for balance) to link to the specific past discussions.
Re: Civility. After 14 months or so of these recurrent edit wars, so often over the same handful of articles, people will tend to chalk their own and others' less than civil remarks up to prolonged frustration, so it just becomes a case of finger pointing as to who's to blame regardless of who made the uncivil remarks.
Asgardian has said people hurt their own cases when they side with someone who can be obnoxious or even quote that person. However, pointing that out can actually make outsiders wonder why so many people would side with somebody who can be that obnoxious instead of backing the person striving to use calmer language. Besides, calm is not always good. We need some emotive language at times. Don't let the language someone else uses blind you to that person's message. Expressing your feelings is at least honest.
Tenebrae, you know you're ready to see the worst sometimes. Whether you're right to feel that way based on the history is a separate issue, but you can hurt your own case when you use more "emotive language" that might make an outsider ready to dismiss you as overemotional. You could blind arbitrators and other administrators to the point behind your message (see above).
Asgardian, after 14 months in which it's been you against a continually growing "anti-Asgardian bandwagon," you're going to have a hard time convincing outsiders that you're right and all those other people are wrong. You've acknowledged that you have ego issues involved in this (and, to be fair, you've said you're working on them).
When I asked you both about what needs to happen, you both talked about what other people need to do and not what you personally can do differently in the future. Plus, the things you mentioned that other people need to do are short-term actions, not long-term goals. Without some real changes in behavior, it really looks like these things will end only if someone gets banned. Now, we're not talking about an anti-Tenebrae bandwagon, so banning Tenebrae won't stop this. You know who that leaves. Please do not think I'm advocating for anyone to get banned, but 14 months of feuding make it hard to imagine that these edit wars will end any other way. Is this really how any of you want to spend your time?
Anyone who wants things to improve needs to talk about their own behavior and what they're going to do differently. Doczilla 22:01, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ten and Asgardian, I really feel sad, knowing this has to escalate up to this crazy magnitude, seeing users presenting their own evidences against both of you. I really don't know what help I can actually lend at this point. I mean, where is this actually going? If I present my own evidence either for Ten or Asgardian, where would it actually lead us? Only hatred...with no clear solution. I only wish both of you could find a room, or even just a little to forgive and forget. Im not going to take any sides as both of you are responsible for your own actions. Both of you may have done something good, but both of you may have also done something bad. I know you two only wish to improve WP:COMIC with your own little humble ways. I really feel sorry, but Im still hoping that this arbitration can bring some hope, light and resolution to this dilemma.
At this moment, there's no more point to present or pinpoint evidences as it is evident that you two are culpable for this matter. I say, it is now time to focus on the best possible SOLUTION/PROCEDURE. Withdraw all accusations, withdraw all threats. Let us all start again back to zero and begin structuring the best solution. I can honestly suggest that both of you take a breather. Lay-low for now, perhaps 3 months for both wounds or ill-feelings to heal. I trust that there are capable editors on the COMIC project who can handle the works you two are both doing or involved with. The wiki addiction has gone beyond much. An amicable "banning" for both parties is something I strongly suggest, good for only 3 months. I know its a bit harsh, considering Ten is my fellow wiki, but I believe this is the best way. It is pointless to continously present evidences. This is not a contest as to who gets the most. †Bloodpack† 06:49, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My work schedule just increased for the next couple of weeks so I'll try and add stuff as and when I can. Apologies. Hiding Talk 18:53, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Per Hiding's comment above, and Tenebrae's comment on the main page, I would like to suggest/request that this be delayed. (I would not like to see this closed due to inactivity.) As the concerns don't seem to be time sensitive, I hope that putting this temporarily "on hold" would not be problematic. If it is, please let me know before closing. Thank you for your consideration. - jc37 07:15, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I presented lengthy evidence documenting possible sock puppetry during this case, [9]. Since a check user request has just established Asgardian has edited using an ip address in a manner violation of the arbitration ruling, does this mean new sanctions need to be considered, or should we stick to the prohibitions listed in the case outcome? Hiding T 21:54, 6 January 2008 (UTC) <edited to add link to checkuser request and clarify a point, Hiding T 21:56, 6 January 2008 (UTC)>[reply]
- Any uninvolved administrator can take action against an editor who sockpuppets to avoid an ArbCom restriction. Reports of infractions should be posted to Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:30, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The following arbitration-related discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
Statement by Hiding
[edit]Per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Asgardian-Tenebrae#Asgardian restricted, for one year from December 2007, Asgardian was "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." I'd like to clarify what the current situation would be with regards this sanction? I accept that the sanction has now expired, but if I feel it should be re-instated I'd like to clarify the process for re-instating it. Is another arbitration case the only way, or is it possible to have the case amended? I'm concerned about gaming of the system here, namely that a user sits tight for a year, and then once the sanction ends, returns to behaviour deemed unacceptable. My concerns are based on the following:
- In light of this pointer to WP:BRD, at Abomination (comics) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Rhino (comics) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Asgardian engaged in revert warring with another user: a diff between Asgardian and Dr Bat here. Notice the many differences, mainly consisting of mentions of individual issues, for example, Solo Avengers #12 and Marvel Super-Heroes vol. 3, #6 - 8. Now we can see a diff here, which covers twelve edits to the page over the course of two days, four made by DrBat and five by Asgardian, the other edits from anonymous or uninvolved editors. The diff is from an Asgardian edit to an Asgardian edit. Note, no posts were made by Asgardian to the talk page of either article during this revert war.
- Ownership issues: Please see this diff. I am concerned at the claim made by Asgardian that the "article is almost complete". It's an assertion Asgardian has made repeatedly in this dispute, see here: "It took hours to complete Abomination, and Rhino was in fact almost finished" and here: "one article as finished and supported by others and the other was one session from being completed". To me these comments completely cut across the idea that Wikipedia is a collaboration and that decisions are made through consensus.
I hope that outlines why I am seeking clarification as to the next step in this dispute, whether it is possible to reactivate a previous arbitration ruling through an amendment or whether a new case is needed? I have notified User:Asgardian of the request here. I have also requested input from WP:COMICS here. Hiding T 11:27, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In response to Asgardian
[edit]Regarding the assertion from Asgardian that "The first article - Abomination - was in the main rewritten by myself, and supported by other users", please review Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Comics/Archive_38#Stand_up_and_take_notice.21, Talk:Abomination (comics)#Who's in change?, Talk:Red Hulk#Dates while describing the plot, Talk:Abomination (comics)#Who's in change? and Talk:Abomination (comics)#Recent edits. Hiding T 18:44, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure what Hiding is trying to say. With regards to Abomination, I have written two version of the article, both of which advocate different styles and are really no more than bold edits. When the first, which included many dates and reflected a preference at the time, was felt to be inappropriate, I wrote the second version that is currently in use. Given I was willing to go back again and rewrite an article in accordance with consensus, I'd say I was being a team player. As for Red Hulk, another editor insisted on another way to write the article, and I complied. Asgardian (talk) 04:10, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In response to Vassayana
[edit]What would you have us do? To clarify, you state that this "appears to be a relatively straightforward situation." Can you explain in what way it is straight forwards, as I don't actually see it as being so. Thank you. Hiding T 18:49, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- A pointed question: Are there other interpretations to the sentence "A user may be blocked when his or her conduct severely disrupts the project; that is, when his or her conduct is inconsistent with a civil, collegial atmosphere and interferes with the process of editors working together harmoniously to create an encyclopedia." than those listed in the blocking policy? By which I mean, can the sentence itself be read as a sentence on its own, and blocks made using that sentence? I've always held to a rather tight interpretation regarding blocking. I feel I for one perhaps need guidance in that area. Hiding T 19:06, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In response to one and all
[edit]I think you can close this, as it is not really going anywhere. It looks like we will have to build an RFC. Hiding T 16:52, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Statement by Asgardian
[edit]While I respect Hiding, I believe there is a considerable amount of inference here. For sake of ease, I'll address the points individually.
Secret Wars - the first link [16], simply shows a correction of another user's edits. It doesn't appear to be the user that participates at a later stage. I left comments in the Edit Summaries, and was happy to engage in dialogue with this user, which I currently am with reference to another article [17]. I also posted this on Hiding's page at the time [18] which shows good faith [19]. There was no edit warring, merely an attempt to educate which I am now expanding on with said user.
Abomination/Rhino - I outlined my entire rationale here [20], which also shows that it was in fact the other user who constantly reverted, and made no contributions whatsoever. None. I was even insulted by this user and called a "troll" [21]. Note that I did not retaliate, but instead asked a neutral administrator to intervene, which they did. I also attempted to continue to discuss the issue with the user, and refered the discussion away from Hiding's page as it was not appropriate. I am also not seeing what is inappropriate about the two users in dispute discussing the issue on their respective Talk pages. I have made several attempts, although discussion seems to have stalled as the other user has chosen not to apologize [22] [23] [24].
Hiding is unfortunately also incorrect in the statement that "one article as finished and supported by others and the other was one session from being completed". To me these comments completely cut across the idea that Wikipedia is a collaboration and that decisions are made through consensus." This is assumption and inference, as the tell-tale phrase is to me. The first article - Abomination - was in the main rewritten by myself, and supported by other users [25]. Please note that no one has made any major changes since it was redrafted [26]. This would imply a collaborative consensus. The other - Rhino - was one session away from the final section being redrafted, and in accordance with the wishes of the group [27], which I stated here [28] (the section in question being: I have contributed to dozens of articles and make every effort to improve them. It took hours to complete Abomination, and Rhino was in fact almost finished. A check of the Edit Summary [29] and this line - The Rhino proves to be a perennial favourite in Marvel publications, appearing in over a dozen titles in solo capacity or teamed with dother villains - shows that I was just about to take the advice offered here [30] and create a summary of the signifiant issues, as opposed to a laundry list. Please also note that I wrote both versions, hence improving on my own work is hardly outrageous. The summary would number no more than six points, as opposed to the dozens of listings currently present in the 1990s-2000s section.)
To conclude, I find much of this to be opinion. I have edited dozens of articles, many of which were nothing more than a few lines and an empty SHB and made them fully, fledged articles. In doing so I have seem to have received far more criticism [31] [32] [33] than actual compliments [34]. I've also come a long way, and do not engage in blind reverting and attempt where possible to discuss the issues. I suppose I could also ask why I am the focus here, when my edits are performed in good faith and there is constant edit warring on a number of other articles.
I do have the odd encounter with other editors over substance, but these are almost always over substandard material, and I do my best to accommodate, despite the immaturity and rudeness that is often displayed. I do not feel that Hiding was right to impose a month-long ban on myself for my work on two articles, although I can accept this with good grace. I am happy to continue to try to discuss where possible (although again this is more than most do) and have shown evidence of collaboration. I also do not believe I have done anything that warrants a sanction.
For your consideration
Asgardian (talk) 04:41, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Since Asgardian and I were involved in that previous Arbitration, I should probably add my perspective. On the positive side, Asgardian is diligent against fancruft. I'm not sure that's of sufficient weight to balance the continuing difficulties he presents to veteran members of Wiki Project Comics, including myself. The tipping point, for me, is two-fold:
First, the reluctance to accept established, consensus-derived style guidelines. It pains me to say this, since I have collaborated with him successfully on some occasions in 2008, but he will only accept style guidelines for a little while after being told to by an admin, and then he reverts to old habits. I do not believe that a WikiProject Comics editor of three or more years is simply forgetting — to give one of several examples that I could, and the smallest and most picayune &mdash that WPC does not abbreviate "June" or "March" when citing comic-book cover dates. Related to this is his disingenuousness in edit summaries, when something he claims as a small change is actually much more, or a change that is said to go along with consensus actually does the opposite. I have seen a pattern of "laying low" and then returning after a few weeks or month to an article in which consensus went against him, and making the disputed wholesale edits again.
In 2007, this was one thing. In 2009, after much more experience and more time to see behavior repeating itself, it shows a disinclination to accept consensus, and someone whom other editors cannot trust. --Tenebrae (talk) 01:40, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Response to Tenebrae
[edit]- Again, I think there is a degree of inference. First of all, please note that I respect Tenebrae, who excels at editing comic articles on real life persons.
As to the claims, Tenebrae speaks of the "continuing difficulties he presents to veteran members of Wiki Project Comics, including myself." Firstly, Tenebrae has been absent from Wikipedia since the beginning of the year, and returned only recently [35]. Secondly, who are the "veteran" editors? Once again, it is the same small group of editors who offer opinions on matters, and again, there is the danger that such a small group has become set in their views with no new fresh perspective.
Next, Tenebrae mentions dates, and yet it is acceptable to abbreviate months as per the Guidelines [36]. In the interests of "keeping the peace", I adopted the style that Tenebrae requested, and despite this another editor reverted back to my original choice and cited the Guidelines as a reference [37]. This clearly shows duality, and that editors have choices as to how to make improvements to articles. They should not be chastised for choosing one over another if the option is allowed under the umbrella of the Guidelines.
Also, note that I made several overtures to Tenebrae to work with him on the article in question [38] [39] despite the fact that he continually reverted because he disliked the format, and in doing so removed valid, additional information.
Finally, I'm perplexed as to the comment "someone whom other editors cannot trust." What does this mean? All actions by editors are recorded and available for viewing. Where is the relevant section in the Wikipedia Guidelines on "trust"? I was under the impression that editors are asked to acted on good faith [40] as opposed to forming judgements about trust.
All my edits are performed with the intent of improving the articles (which sometimes means removing invalid information which Tenebrae refers to as "fancruft"), and with good faith.
For your consideration.
Asgardian (talk) 04:41, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Regarding the months, as I have noted to Asgardian time and time again in vain, the long months are abbreviated, as was done in the very example Asgardian gives. WikiProject Comics does not abbreviate the short months (as Asgardian does, changing "June" to "Jun.", for example), and neither does the example Asgardian gives. So I'm confused as to what Asgardian's point is.
- Second, being away for some months does not change the four years' experience before that. I refreshed myself in WikiProject Comics guidelines and policies, most of which remained unchanged, on my return. To say I "disliked" Asgardian's formatting is a disingenuous and misleading statement on his part. His edits unilaterally blended two discrete and highly different sections together in a manner clearly at odds with standing, long-established consensus. This is part of what I mean by trust issues.
- "Veteran editors" means WikiProject Comics editors who have worked on the project for years, a number of whom are admins. Asgardian and I are both certainly Project veterans.
- And clearly, I am far from the only veteran WPC editor who feels remarkably frustrated at all the time and effort being expended on a single editor who often refuses to respect guidelines, policies and consensus. -- Tenebrae (talk) 20:16, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Tenebrae did advise me as to a preferred option on dates [41], but didn't specify that it was only the long months that are abbreviated. Now that I know this, we can amicably move off that topic and go to another part of the Guidelines under discussion [42]. In short, we are in discussion, and this shows good faith. I'm not seeing anything insurmountable. Asgardian (talk) 04:02, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- In point of fact, I've informed Asgardian about WikiProject Comics MOS on dates time and time again, beginning months or even a year ago. For him to suggest I've only advised him of this recently is frustrating and indicative of his tendency to try and mislead. This editor does not readily listen to other editors, does not adhere to MOS that he knows fully well, and creates difficulties for, and wastes much time of, many editors. This was a serious issue when he was put on a year's probation in December 2007 and the situation has not appreciably approved. Hiding is far from alone in beseeching help. -- Tenebrae (talk) 03:12, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I would suggest Tenebrae not use this forum to keep examining a minor point that has been resolved. We can discuss this at his Talk Page: [43]. It would be also be appreciated if edtiors could comment without making inflammatory inferences, such as "his tendency to try and mislead". For one thing, it is a breach of civility [44]. The claim that I do not "readily listen to other editors" is also untrue as I have shown collaboration above, and dramatic generalisations such as "Hiding is far from alone in beseeching help. -- " should be avoided. Many thanks. Asgardian (talk) 03:21, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Arbitrator views and discussion
[edit]- Aware of request and awaiting more statements. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 18:47, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Same as FloNight. Awaiting statement from Asgardian and also any WP:COMICS editors who may wish to say something. Carcharoth (talk) 01:53, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Concur with Vassyana, with the caveat that any administrative action would need to be well-founded and based on looking at the surrounding context and behaviour of all involved (though of necessity not to the same level as an arbitration case does). If an administrator looks at this and feels unable to act, suggest a discussion at an administrators noticeboard, or a user conduct request for comment. My view on requests for re-imposition of expired sanctions or restrictions is that a new case is generally needed (otherwise those sanctioned in cases from some time ago can be unduly targeted later by means of clarification requests), though it is usual for a new case to not take as long, since the hope is that things are clearer given the background provided by the original case. Admins should also be able to judge behaviour in the light of past arbitration cases and sanctions. Carcharoth (talk) 06:03, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This appears to be a relatively straightforward situation. Is there a pressing reason that this cannot be handled through standard administrative intervention and/or community discussion? Vassyana (talk) 18:36, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- In response to Hiding: A user conduct request for comments could potentially help resolve the situation, but if nothing else would provide a clear, centralized view of the problem. Blocks and community-imposed topic bans are two "hard" tools that would be suitable to the situation. Regarding the pointed question, it is important to remember that we are more bound to the principles that our policies represent than the letter of them. If someone is obviously being disruptive, their actions do not magically cease to be disruptive (and therefore subject to sanctions) because the exact behavior is not detailed in policy. If that disruption fits under the general spirit of the blockable offenses listed in the blocking policy, it is blockable behavior. Or, to put it another way that directly responds to your question, that sentence is a fit rationale for blocking. Vassyana (talk) 19:05, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
