Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Asgardian-Tenebrae/Evidence
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
Create your own section to provide evidence in, and do not edit anyone else's section. Keep your evidence to a maximum of 1000 words and 100 diffs. Evidence longer than this will be refactored or removed entirely. |
Anyone, whether directly involved or not, may add evidence to this page. Create your own section and do not edit in anybody else's section. Please limit your main evidence to a maximum 1000 words and 100 diffs and keep responses to other evidence as short as possible. A short, concise presentation will be more effective; posting evidence longer than 1000 words will not help you make your point. Over-long evidence that is not exceptionally easy to understand (like tables) will be trimmed to size or, in extreme cases, simply removed by the Clerks without warning - this could result in your important points being lost, so don't let it happen. Stay focused on the issues raised in the initial statements and on diffs which illustrate relevant behavior.
It is extremely important that you use the prescribed format. Submitted evidence should include a link to the actual page diff in question, or to a short page section; links to the page itself are insufficient. Never link to a page history, an editor's contributions, or a log for all actions of an editor (as those will have changed by the time people click on your links), although a link to a log for a specific article or a specific block log can be useful. Please make sure any page section links are permanent. See simple diff and link guide.
This page is not for general discussion - for that, see the talk page. If you think another editor's evidence is a misrepresentation of the facts, cite the evidence and explain how it is incorrect within your own section. Please do not try to re-factor the page or remove evidence presented by others. If something is put in the wrong place, leave it for the Arbitrators or Clerks to move.
Arbitrators may analyze evidence and other assertions at /Workshop. /Workshop provides for comment by parties and others as well as Arbitrators. After arriving at proposed principles, findings of fact or remedies, Arbitrators vote at /Proposed decision. Only Arbitrators may edit /Proposed decision.
[edit] Evidence presented by Hiding
[edit] User:Asgardian has made uncivil comments
An example can be found most recently at [1]
[edit] User:Tenebrae has made uncivil comments
An example can be found most recently at [2]
[edit] User:Asgardian has engaged in comments which could be taken as goading
I think the text in this comment can be read as baiting.[3] There's no need for the comment. User:Asgardian has stated he made it in response to one by User:Tenebrae,[4] however it is a principle of fact that Wikipedia editors must avoid responding in kind when personally attacked.
[edit] User:Asgardian has engaged in legal threats
I think the text in this comment can be taken as a legal threat, and I think the text also makes it clear this is not the first time the user has made such a thereat. I would also ask the arbitrators to consider whether this comment is an attempt to bully or psychologically intimidate. [5]
[edit] User:Asgardian has ownership issues
The above edit also highlights for me the ownership issues I believe Asgardian has. Note the user states I not only accepted (as we all should) new information on articles I have written, [6] (my emphasis). I think the use of the phrase I have written denotes ownership. I'm also troubled by the phrase "I not only accepted". This reads to me like there are issues with the way the user interacts with Wikipedia. Hiding Talk 14:57, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
- Further, [7], in which Asgardian states By the by, take a look at what Odin, or Thanos or the Squadron Supreme article was like before I jumped on board.. Hiding Talk 13:31, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
- Also see [8], [9] and [10]. Hiding Talk 13:40, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] User:Asgardian has been notified of guidance on edit summaries
These diffs, [11], [12], [13] and [14] show that on numerous occasions User:Asgardian has been notified as to the correct use of the minor edit function and the nature of Wikipedia as a collaborative project. These diffs should also show that User:Asgardian has been guided as to the importance of discussion and consensus. Hiding Talk 13:46, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
- This diff,[15] also provides evidence of another user coaching Asgardian as to edit summary use. Hiding Talk 14:00, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] User:Asgardian and User:Tenebrae have used Wikipedia as a battleground
I think that can best be demonstrated in this section of one talk page, [16]. The whole debate has descended into a fight. I think this evidence supports a number of principles on civility, baiting, battleground, ownership and personal attacks. Hiding Talk 14:11, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Pages have been protected based on edit warring
Blood Brothers (comics),[17] Vision (Marvel Comics) (twice) [18], Galactus, [19] and Speed Demon (Marvel Comics), [20] have all been protected due to edit warring. User:Asgardian participated in all of the edit wars which led to page protection, User:Tenebrae was another party in two, at Speed Demon (Marvel Comics) and Blood Brothers (comics). There was also an edit war between Asgardian and Tenebrae at Awesome Android in late October this year. Hiding Talk 14:27, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] User:Asgardian has disrupted Wikipedia
Asgardian is first blocked for edit warring in Oct 2006, see archive. Asgardian is blocked a second time on the 14th January, per archive link.
In between those two blocks another edit war occurs at Basilisk (comics), [21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29]. Also, a thread is started at WP:ANI, in December 2006. During this debate Asgardian declares deliberate disruption: As for 3RR, the first time was simply an experiment. I wanted to see if Wikipedia followed through (I wrote a paper on Wikipedia and procedues)., [30].
A report is then filed at WP:AN, a second following 21 May.
Asgardian was also involved in an RFC at Whizzer, and a consensus was agreed on the talk page. Asgardian then edited contrary to agreed consensus, [31] and [32]. At Mjolnir (Marvel Comics), Asgardian makes a misleading edit summary, tagged minor, which removes sourced material [33]. This move is reverted [34] with Asgardian directed to discuss here. Asgardian never contributes to the talk page but edits instead [35].
At Vision (Marvel Comics), four edit wars involving Asgardian have broken out. Initially there is dispute over scope and the correct way to move/merge. Discussion begins here. However, Asgardian contributes only twice, at the beginning,[36] and the end,[37] failing to engage in building a consensus, whilst editing the article during the discussion. [38], with Asgardian breaching GFDL, [39] [40], [41], [42], an edit by an ip address Asgardian has declared using here thus made in breach of WP:3RR. A further repeat made [43], all of these edits made despite being told this is breaches GFDL. [44]
A second edit war leads to a mediator stepping in [45] and page protection, [46]. Talk page discussion starts here, page is unprotected in June, [47], and Asgardian edits the page [48] to a preferred version [49].
The third edit war unfolds from the 5th July until page protection, [50]. The fourth edit war is between Tenebrae and Asgardian [51], [52], [53], [54], [55], [56], [57], [58], [59].
Asgardian also reverts edits without using edit summaries and marking reverting edits as minor, [60], [61], [62] and [63].
An RFC is initiated by Jc37, in June, and a request for community sanction is made, archive link. The sanction is denied, and the RFC runs until the end of July, at which point matters settle down. Then hostility is resumed in October, with an edit war at Speed Demon (Marvel Comics) (please also note the edit summaries), [64], [65], [66], [67], [68]. At this point another editor attempts to mediate, suggesting a talk page discussion, [69], which Asgardian agrees to on his/her terms, [70]. The discussion can be seen here, but after four days the edit war resumes, [71], [72], [73], [74], [75], until the page is protected. [76]. At this point the RFC is reactivated by User:Tenebrae in late October, see here, before this request for arbitration is made at the beginning of November.
Asgardian has also made incivil comments, [77], [78] and been overly aggressive to newcomers, [79], has repeatedly made misuse of the minor edit summary check button, [80], [81], [82], [83], [84], [85], and engaged in blanking his talk page, [86], [87], [88], [89].
There are also concerns that Asgardian is guilty of sock puppetry. Whilst, as detailed above, Asgardian has admitted that User:203.46.189.91 is an ip address he has used, it is also possible that User:211.29.188.167 and User:220.236.181.190 are other ips used by Asgardian, and also used to avoid breach the 3RR, as can be seen in a series of edits to Thanos in March, [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], as well as attempting to present a consensus by agreeing with his/her own edits in this edit, [115].
[edit] Evidence presented by Komusou
[edit] User:Tenebrae owns an article and destroys 2 hours of scholar referencing
- In order to nominate article Percy Crosby (created by Tenebrae) to WP:DYK, I have spent two hours copyediting and referencing it. Mainly, I searched a source for the missing {{Fact}}, added it to the article with an Archive.org {{Cite web}} permalink, then I also used it to source or double-source the article's main points with topical <REF>'s, plus add more information found in the source but not the article ; also fixing tons of typos, WP:MOSDATE, etc. My main contribution being [116] out of 7 progressive edits. I then nominated it at DYK and informed Tenebrae using {{DYKNom}} on his talk page. Basic encyclopedic referencing and DYK procedure.
- Tenebrae, without reading or discussing, immediately reverted it all,[117]. He claimed that my using so much a single source was "special treatment" and thus meant that I was its author in COI, which is quite insane.[118] The article I used comes directly from Skippy.com, the very official website that was given at the end of his article.
- Tenebrae also claimed on the article's talk page (previous talk page diff) that my referencing was useless because already done, which is simply false: for instance, his SSN ref doesn't give the place of birth nor the day of death, which I sourced using the new article. Also, a strong article can use 2 or 3 separate sources to better establish the main points and claims.
- Tenebrae claimed that he did a "partial rv" (talk page diff), which is entirely untrue. Essentially, he reverted 100% then fixed some of the typos I had pointed out in my edits. Gone are both the meat (sourcing each point with a direct topical <REF> linked to a source), or the many copyediting details (such as not naming "References" the section with only an external link to the official homepage), or the use of a stable Archive.org permalink, and all the basics of a decent article.
- Tenebrae claimed on the article's talk page that I have to prove him point-by-point that my referencing is justified,[119] that is he shoots first, talk later, and put the onus on me instead of reading my incremental and commented diffs and the source article. Furthermore, decent editing would have be for him to at least do partial undos or change back details, with clear edit summaries, allowing the diffs to go on. His reverting in full obfuscates entirely what he does to the article afterwards, breaking the diff trail and the transparency of edits, which is unwiki. My own edits were done progressively, with crystal-clear diffs verified using the "Show changes" button, and complete edit summaries,[120][121][122][123][124][125][126] there was no reason to destroy it all. Due to his diff-obfuscation method, it would take a disproportionate amount of time just to check what he does to the butchered article.
- Well, I'm not going to lose more hours to save this sorry article, which is now in shambles, with faked or incomplete sources and typos, and a paranoid owner. But going back to his talk page, I saw a section about this arbitration and thus came here. I have never interacted with him before, but I fully understand why other editors wouldn't be able to work with such an unencyclopedic editor, and I wanted to bear witness to it. Especially considering that since he knows he's already under ArbCom scrutiny, what I saw is probably only his most self-controlled behavior rather that what other editors must have suffered before.
— Komusou talk @ 17:15, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] User:Tenebrae restores libel, personal attack
Related to the above point:
- I had carried over my sourcing to the identical {{Fact}} tag in the child article Skippy (comic strip) (created by the related Percy Crosby) in three progressive edits [127][128][129] : for the fact and sourcing a libel; then the <REF> format of the two other main sources; then fixing the thumb size, illo caption, and egregious typos on Charles Schulz's name written with two different errors a few words apart.
- Again, even though he could have talked, or edited what displeased him in the results, or undone a selective edit, Tenebrae reverted it 100%[130] to its unsourced, typo'ed, libelous state.
- Again, there is an unfounded personal attack of WP:COI against me in the revert edit summary.
- The reverted article is back to its unsourced and thus libelous claims against the Skippy peanut butter company, that "Crosby's institutionalization was engineered as part of a conspiracy to prevent him from objecting to this trademark appropriation". I had at least brought a source with the subject's own daughter alleging this.
- I think this shows where the article owner's priorities are, and how he doesn't care about the encyclopedia or lawsuits.
— Komusou talk @ 17:52, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Response to Komusou
- All I can say about these remarkable WP:NAM claims is that anyone can compare the two versions, here and here. They are virtually word-for-word.
- I would note that the litigation graf was not written or originated by me, but ported over from the Skippy article, where I had made the good-faith assumption the editors there had sourced it with their official-site reference.
- I supplied my rationale for every edit at Talk:Percy Crosby#Scaleback of Nash. I simply don't understand Komusou's claims of the article being poorly sourced when its footnotes includes two books, including the standard biography by Robbins, and dates confirmed by the Social Security Administration, except that it now includes only three, non-duplicative footnotes of his favored source.
- I'll return with details and examples regarding the Asgardian issues. Thanks. --Tenebrae 18:20, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Evidence presented by Tenebrae
[edit] Asgardian engages in frequent edit wars requiring page protection
This includes requests by GentlemanGhost, initiated because of Asgardian and an apparent sock-puppet, for Galactus here, and for Mephisto and Thanos, here.
[edit] Asgardian's comments can be aggressively uncivil
In one instance, an edit summary personally attacked the previous editor with "rv another pointless edit that did nothing but degrade the article". In another early incident here, which in retrospect presaged the contentiousness he has exhibited since, he became defensive and uncooperative over a simple WP:NPOV matter — in which he argued that his opinion should be taken as canon
Additionally, he has removed other editors' posts from article talk pages, such as here at Talk:Thor (Marvel Comics) (restored by a different editor here).
At one point, he wrote to an editor that "Tenebrae still acts like the schoolyard snitch ('Look what he did! I'm telling!')" — which, the schoolyard allusion aside, does actually presuppose there's some transgression of which to tell.
[edit] Asgardian has threatened disruption...
Such as here, saying, "More updates to follow - could be time consuming trying to undo all of them."
[edit] ...and engaged in purposeful, "experimental" disruption
Doing it after writing a school paper on Wikipedia, as he says here and contrary to the Wikipedia guideline. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:36, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Asgardian has engaged in a legal threat
Distinct from the posting above, but referencing it, here
[edit] Asgardian often goes against editorial guidelines
This ranges from minor — his multiple-revert insistence ([131], [132], and [133]) on using the form "v.1" rather than "vol. 1", contrary to the editorial guidelines — to the major, such as unilaterally removing a proscribed section ("Publication history") specifically called for in WikiProject Comics exemplar, and which at least five editors on the talk page Talk:Awesome_Android#Publication_History_Inclusion agreed should be kept. In another example, he unilaterally merged two articles though aware that splits and mergers go through discussion on the Project's Notice Board.
Here is just one instance, of many, in which I, like other editors, tried as neutrally as possible to point out specific edits that went against specific Wikipedia policies. As has often happened since, this type of posting was either ignored or, improbably, taken as emotional accusations, such as here (which also illustrates another frequent tactic, taking one positive polite comment in an otherwise constructively critical post, and claiming support for all his positions.
[edit] Asgardian often goes against talk-page discussion
Related to the above, he frequently makes repeated edits contrary to talk-page discussion — even discussion to which he appeared to agree, as indicated by his continual reversions of two editors working from talk-page consensus here, here, and here. Related to this, he often has made unilaterally changes to a page in which his specific contested edits are under discussion by two or more editors, such as at Talk:Vision (Marvel Comics)#Latest edit war, with unilateral changes made immediately after an admin unblocked the page. See unprotection by the admin, change contrary to talk page, and restoration by the admin.
[edit] Asgardian often engages in WP:OWN behavior
Such as here, and in the phrase "I regret ever creating this article and would be happy for it to be wiped" here (scroll down or do a "find" for a couple words in that phrase).
[edit] Asgardian has been unresponsive to entreaties by other editors
This goes back as long ago as Dec. 6, 2006. I tried again in May 2007
This has also taken the form of frequent, and rather defiant, blanking of his talk page — which, while not actively prohibited, is discouraged, and removes evidence that editors such as User:Doczilla and others have tried to work with him and ensure he's aware of policies.
[edit] On the plus side, Asgardian is diligent in removing fancruft
[edit] Ultimately, however, he will not behave cooperatively
A long list of editors have been frustrated and exasperated by him for over a year. Already by December 11, 2006, at this proposal to ban him, many editors besides myself — Doczilla, EVula, GentlemanGhost, and admins Jc37, User:ChrisGriswold and Hiding — were at wits' ends. We attempted to get some form of probation applied, and finally just got worn out by his voluminous counter-contentions, long ramblings, addressing of points different from what was brought up, etc.
Six months later, Jc37 initiated Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics/Request for comment/Asgardian, in which many of those above editors plus J Greb, Ipstenu, RIANZ, Freak104, and Lots42 all recounted Asgardian horror stories, with links. Asgardian's actions around this time resulted in short blocks on June 22 and July 6 — part of a pattern of blocks that don't seem to have done much good in terms of modifying his behavior.
[edit] And I'd forgotten, but Asgardian is self-aggrandizing
As he states in his evidence below, he paints himself as a savior of articles, and his statement that, "I am one of the only users that have actually rewritten entire articles to make them 'Wiki' perfect" is both remarkable and typical. When others find his work non-MOS or in incorrect format, poorly written (and it often is, with repetitive short paragraphs each beginning "In 1968", "In 1976", "In 1981", etc.), or containing redundancies, he turns on them, saying it can't possibly be his own writing — and that anyone saying anything is being "personal" or is "too close" or any of a dozen excuses. This is what frustrates such a large number of editors — this inability to take honest stock of oneself, and to consider that if a half-dozen people all say similar things, that maybe it's not them, it's you. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:12, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Evidence presented by Skyelarke
[edit] Tenebrae - pursuing ban of Asgardian without consensus
This during a user conduct RfC on Asgardian-
[edit] Tenebrae - vendetta-like behavior towards Asgardian
The evidence here has colleagues strongly pointing out problems with Tenebrae's behavior -
[edit] Tenebrae - engaging in edit warring
Here a colleague is pointing out reciprocal reverting and ownership behavior on the Blood Brothers article.
[edit] Tenebrae - disruptive editing
Here is mention of a general practice of making peremptory, dogmatic, rigid applications of guidelines regarding link and reference protocol.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ATenebrae&diff=156735758&oldid=156541262
[edit] Tenebrae - various etiquette/civility concerns
In the course of an RFA - various behavioral concerns were raised - which overall seems to demonstrate a marked vigilante attitude (the incident Pascal Tesson is refering to, the third diff., cites a situation where Tenebrae threatened to track down a user's identity and report him to his employers):
--Skyelarke (talk) 03:04, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Addendum - Tenebrae - Canvassing
These messages sent during this arbitration hearing and apparently in reaction to evidence being presented at said arbitration hearing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:ThuranX&diff=prev&oldid=172845400
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bloodpack&diff=prev&oldid=172845627
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:J_Greb&diff=prev&oldid=172845873
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Odin%27s_Beard&diff=prev&oldid=172846294
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Emperor&diff=prev&oldid=172846857
PS.
Canvassing concerns were previously raised at a RfA:
--Skyelarke (talk) 17:59, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Factual correction to Skyelarke canvassing claim
Per WP:CANVASS: Friendly notices
"Neutrally worded notifications sent to a small number of editors are considered 'friendly notices' if they are intended to improve rather than to influence a discussion..." Nowhere in these notices did I ask anyone to support or oppose a position, but simply to comment. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:13, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Evidence presented by {Asgardian}
[edit] {Hiding} is not objective
He has engaged in an edit war with User:Tenebrae over one of the very articles being discussed - Blood Brothers. [134] He has also been advised by other users that he can gotten too close to this matter. His claim of "uncivility" is also untrue - I defy anyone to find a comment made by myself that is anywhere near as offensive as those made by others toward me. Examples include User:CovenantD's comment [135] and User:GentlemanGhost's remark. [136] My comment re: legal action is merely a point I wanted people to consider - they need to take more care with what they say on Wikipedia. It is a public forum. It is also an assumption that I will not work with the group - the last few months of editing support my claim. I simply want User:Tenebrae to work with me without the element of drama.
[edit] {Tenebrae} has not been objective
2 users have already posted in Evidence re: this (thank you for the support). User:Kusonaga even advised Tenebrae that has made this matter too personal. [137]
I am not going to go into this at length. I will only say that I cannot believe how this has gotten so out of hand. My edits of recent months have been of a very co-operative nature, with examples including Vision - where I supported User:Tenebrae - and where we worked together to tidy up Awesome Android. Other articles where I have recently worked with others include Marvel vs. DC, and work is currently being done on the Henry Pym article. Unfortunately, there is, as User:Netkinetic points out, [138] a "pack mentality". As soon I disagree with an edit, there is an automatic assumption it will escalate into an edit war. Not so.
We can (and I have) move on from this. I have taken User:Doczilla's advice to heart, and am happy to receive input from other users. I have made a substantial contribution on dozens of articles, and used my knowledge to comics to bring many piece up to an acceptable standard. To my knowledge, I am one of the only users that have actuallly rewritten entire articles to make them "Wiki" perfect (eg. Thanos). The claim that I then own said articles is an assumption. People are inferring from my comments, and recent examples work show I am receptive new additions.
For your consideration.
Asgardian (talk) 09:55, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Evidence presented by GentlemanGhost
[edit] User:Asgardian has made uncivil comments
Asgardian has a history of denigrating the work of others. [139] [140] [141] [142] [143] [144] [145]
[edit] User:Asgardian has ownership issues
This edit summary reflects this [146] as does this comment [147]. This was his response to User:Tenebrae's attempt to work things out with him back in April. [148] Lest I be cited for bringing up ancient history, there's this edit from two days ago. [149] I don't disagree with the action, but the summary is combative and marking it as minor is deceptive.
[edit] User:Asgardian has engaged in edit wars
Once, he reverted an edit "just for the sake of it" [150].
[edit] Evidence presented by J Greb
[edit] User:Asgardian continue to misuse edit summaries
This is looking at the edits made in article space by the user since this arbitration was accepted and opened on Nov 8, 2007 up to this posting.
- [151] The edit summary (ES) only cites removal of "unnecessary game info", however the editor removed additional cited information not directly related to the re ordering.
- [152] The ES is specific on what is removed. An additional text section unrelated to those items is also removed.
- [153] The ES only mentions adding material, no mention is made about the full section removed.
- [154] No ES offered for the removal of sourced material.
- [155] The ES calls this a "Tidy up" which consisted of what can be called a "gut" of the article.
- [156] ES labels what is an apparent good faith attempt to add information as "vandalism".
- [157] Again no ES offered to explain the edit. The same with [158], [159], [160], [161], [162], [163], [164], [165], [166], and [167]
- [168] The ES only refers to "More referencing", no mention is made to the other massive editing.
- [169] The ES states "Way too complicated for the average reader." But the only change is to undo a redirect avoidance. Both links end up at the same article, the original directly, and Asgardians by redirect.
That is 19 of the 76 edits made in article space.
These show a tendency to, at best, omit mention of actions taken.
[edit] User:Asgardian continues to misuse the "minor edit" marker
This is looking at the edits made in article space by the user since this arbitration was accepted and opened on Nov 8, 2007 up to this posting.
Asgardian has inappropriately marked as "minor" edits where he has:
- Removed unsourced information: [170]
- Removed information: [171], [172], [173], [174], [175], [176], [177], [178], [179], [180], [181], [182], [183], [184], [185], as well as like edits to 7 other articles, [186], [187], [188], [189], [190], [191], [192], and [193]
- Made a substantial rework of a section: [194] and [195]
- Added material back that another editor had removed: [196]
- Removed a link to a deleted, or to be deleted article: [197]
That is 35 of the 45 edits made in article space and marked as "minor". This is over the same 76 over all edits.
It is not that the edits themselves are bad, some of them make fundamental sense. It's that the editor is misusing the "minor" tag on things that are wither major, or could be a source of disagreement.
