Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics/Request for comment/Asgardian

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

A summary of the debate may be found at the bottom of the page.


Request for Comment: User:Asgardian

This is a dispute about content in a myriad of comics-related articles involving User:Asgardian, User:Tenebrae, and others. I'm going to attempt to stay neutral to the discussion.

Note: Such discussions in the past have devolved into personal attacks and other forms of incivility. I strongly suggest that Wikiquette be followed here. - jc37 13:47, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Statements by editors previously involved in dispute

Add statements below.

  • Continuous, dogged contention on a large number of WPC articles, often in defiance of WPC guidelines. On such articles as Galactus, Blood Brothers (comics), and Awesome Android, to name a bare few, he consistently edit-wars, refuses to use WPC formatting unless forced -- and then weeks later goes back and reverts to non-standard formatting -- nitpicks incessantly, and makes for an ugly, exasperating, frustrating atmosphere for a large number of us other volunteer editors. Many of us have tried so hard, on so many occasions, to work with him, only to be accused of being patronizing and all sorts of things. He blanks his Talk page to hide the times he's been reprimanded and blocked, and tests the goodwill of fellow editors to no end. He is combative and defensive, and in the final analysis cannot get along with other editors. It has finally reached a point where many of us believe something of a permanent nature must be done. It is not right that he forces so many us into pointless, time-consuming fights so, so, so very often. -- Tenebrae 14:08, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I really cannot imagine why these same edit wars have been allowed to continue since last fall. Since early September, Asgardian has made several thousand edits, most of them to the same handful of Thor/Cosmic Marvel-related articles. He has a lot of useful knowledge. He can write well. I've defended him several times when I felt someone else was overreacting or maybe the other person had the right intent but handled things terribly. I just do not for the life of me understand how these same articles have stayed locked in edit wars for all these months. I was impressed by a recent major effort at cooperation on the Whizzer article, and yet I now see that wholescale reverts have resumed. When a single individual keeps this many people stirred up like hornets for so very long, that person is not handling things well. That person is either too arrogant or too stubborn to do more than put on a front of trying to get along with others, or that person is deliberately stirring things up for the fun of it, pushing things just far enough to make trouble without ever going quite far enough to get himself banned. Just look at this history. Back in the fall, Asgardian once indicated having made trouble here to test how Wikipedia worked for some school project. I'm not claiming to know which motive drives Asgardian to keep people fighting over the same articles, but look how long these edit wars have gone on. It's ridiculous. This cannot simply be about wanting to produce the best product. I haven't even been that involved in editing these particular pages for a while except to check in occasionally to see if I can help nudge a dispute in a better direction, but it boggles my mind to keep seeing this trouble take up so many people's time and effort. Doczilla 06:46, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Just looking at a spate of his recent edits...
    • Whizzer - His Jun 9 and 14 edits were in contradiction to the RfC that just closed on the article. An RfC he participated in and, for the most part, points he agreed with in the RfC.
    • Mjolnir (Marvel Comics) - Jun 14 edit. The Summary he placed indicates he made changes to remove hearsay and unsourced info... but his edit included the removal of a {{fact}} with date-stamp, and sourced information.
    • Odin (Marvel Comics) - June 13 and 14. While the reverts are understandable, removal of a video game guide tidbit and an unrelated movie appearance, it would have been nice if there had been an edit summary to at least explain why the revert was done, if only for the editors that were reverted.
    • Mephisto (comics) - June 13 and 14, Again, the lack of ES for on, and a misleading one for the other. Also, with the 13th, there is a fair argument that he removed a chunk of notable, valid information.
While he does do some good things, and, as others have commented, he does know his Marvel in universe stuff, how that information is being shared leaves a lot to be desired. It comes across as if these are his articles, and that his action should be all the explanation needed. No willingness to actually abide by consensus, be it generated on an articles talk page, a project level discussion, or a general Wiki guide or principle. No willingness to explain why a point of information is wrong. And no willingness to work in chunks, preferring massive, done-in-one-go revamps that may have one or two changes of many addressed in an ES. It's frustrating to no end, especially to watch him blithely continue doing it even when he's called on it. - J Greb 08:54, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I was prepared to defend him. He and I have been better at working together in the time since I complained about him on the Administrators' Noteboard. Also, the incivility is much less frequent than it used to be. I figured I'd sit back and watch how this thread evolved and see how he reacted to it.
Unfortunately, in the past few days, the useless edit wars have escalated. He's been reverting the SHB image of Mephisto (comics), ignoring and not participating in the dicussion of this on the talk page. He's submarining changes on Mjolnir (comics) by not mentioning them in the edit summary. Previously, he seemed to be willing to work things out in the RfCs for Whizzer and Vision (comics). However, he is now undoing the results of the closed RfC for Whizzer. Will we have to do an RfC for every article he edits? That would be tedious. And pointless, too, if he won't abide by the consensus. He has made many valueable contributions, but his WP:OWN issues are preventing him from getting along with others, and consequently more time is spent fighting than contributing. --GentlemanGhost 03:52, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Within the last 24 hours, Vision (Marvel Comics) was unprotected. Rather than continuing the unresolved discussion on the talk page, Asgardian reinstated his text. [1] And this is after jc37 specifically left a note on the talk page to continue discussion rather than remounting the edit war. How is this a compromise? How is this working together? I've even defended Asgardian's version on the talk page, but I find this insistence that his version is always the "correct" one indefensible. This is the kind of behaviour which makes me doubt him. --GentlemanGhost 20:27, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comments

He will continue reverting other edits so that the article is the way that he wants it to be, he does not care what other editors have to say. I tried to talk through a dispute with him over Absorbing Man so that an edit war would not happen, but he never responded to me. I have not replaced the sections that should be in that article because I know that he will only delete it as soon as he is back on. --Freak104 16:57, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree with Freak104. Asgardian tends to like article his way and HIS way only. Especially pictures in the superhero box. He (I think Asgardian's a he) tends to do this with most Thor characters, Black Bolt and the characters from Squadron Supreme. Also when he reverts articles to his previous edit, any edit done in between get wiped out. I can't be bothered updating any articles that he... "patrols" because it's a waste of time and edit wars bore me.
Sorry mate, life ain't always fair. You can't have things your way all the time. And a lot more people think you're wrong even though you think you're right. RIANZ 21:56, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
  • As evidenced by his repeated changes to the images on Basilisk (comics) ([2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10]) I think he needs to learn to work with people, and accept when a decision doesn't go his way. Which is rough, and it sucks, but it'll drive you nuts. I ended up putting Basilisk on my watchlist, just to help out in keeping the main article from a revert war. -- Ipstenu (talk • contribs) 14:05, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I've refrained adding my comment thusfar in the proceedings relating to Asgardian, in small portion due to a sense of sympathy for "one guy against the world" when the world tends to often devolve to the lowest common denominator repeatedly in their decision making skills. That being said, I have to concede that there comes a point when an editor must acquise to the communal sentiment if for no other reason than to retain a level of respectability. I feel at this point we have need to cross the line from tolerance to a sincere attempting to instill proper editing protocols with the editor for this RfC. That said, I go on record in sheer amazement at the mob mentality on the comicbook project by all save a select few who buck the trend of "group think" (specifically jc37 and Ipstenu) while doing so with a greater level of tact than some of us with far less patience. And I hope that eventually there will be an RfC on the cultural elite that express discourteous statements towards fellow editors while wielding their own academic accumen yet lack the accompanying etiquette expected. Netkinetic (t/c/@) 04:00, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
  • "That said, I go on record in sheer amazement at the mob mentality on the comicbook project by all save a select few who buck the trend of "group think" (specifically jc37 and Ipstenu) while doing so with a greater level of tact than some of us with far less patience."
  • Bingo. That is at the crux of all this. There is a certain degree of "cry wolf" at play here, particularly from one editor who calls in reinforcements at the first sign of disagreement. In fact, some of these "crys for help" (eg. Galactus) have been ridiculous as there has been discussion rather than disagreement, which the relevant Talk Page indicates. There has also been what appears to be a deliberate attempt at spiting myself. Why, after I've edited what was a sub-standard article for months, would the same editor conveniently jump in straight afterwards and rewrite it, and the hide behind the claim that this is the "Wiki way etc"? Very convenient.
  • This poster needs to tone it down as he has also formented his share of trouble, and often needlessly (eg. Galactus). He has also been rather condescending in his tone before now. Of course I am going to be annoyed when someone claims "that we are trying to help you with your writing skills" when in fact I have been the one to research, source and then rewrite diffcult articles such as Thanos, Odin, Vision etc. and a host of other smaller pieces that needed work (recent examples include Zzzax and the Melter). With the exception of Doczilla (whom I respect) I haven't seen anyone rewriting on this scale. And yes, many of these articles needed it. Thanos was terrible and missing years of information. That said, not everyone has to put in this level of effort, and I have come to respect and appreciate the technical touch-ups of editors such as Gentleman Ghost. With reference to the first poster I mentioned, it is simply the way in which he (I assume you are male. If not I apologise.) puts his case that grates.
  • There's also some clutching at straws to build a case going on here. Black Bolt? What image issue? That was changed months ago by someone else. I haven't reverted it once as I think it is perfect. Basilisk? Left alone. As long as that second image doesn't reappear I'm happy. Mephisto? The image couldn't be sourced, and another poster - like myself - preferred the other, which is also the first appearance. Like Galactus, this can be discussed. There's also the fan-driven need to "tell the story" about the Marvel:Ultimate Alliance game, which I've repeatedly culled across several entries and explained as much. Thor? What issue? I've introduced images (and written much of the FCB) that have been there for months.
  • Vision? I've conceded on several fronts (eg. touched up the Timely version) and made my case for the rest, which no one has really disputed. So, please, see that this is not as black and white as some would the majority see it. (Whizzer is my fault, I missed a section).
  • As to my own failings, I'm guilty of not always putting all information in the Edit Summaries, and if in detail in Talk. That will change. Please also note that I have never actually vandalised any article - everything has been done for the improvement of the articles. There are still many, many more out there that rate in the "ugh!" category and need work. Our combined work. I'm happy for someone to shadow my edits, so long as they can be impartial as opposed to peevish. Following my edits and trying to undo them the moment they appear isn't the way to win co-operation!
  • End note: I'll back off on the PH issue on the minor characters, but will just rewrite slightly so that they are easier on the eyes and don't blend with the FCB.
  • For your consideration. - Asgardian 04:43, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
    As a point, your last edit to try and switch the Basilisk image was on May 29th [11] - So if you're willing to stop, I'm willing to drop. it's the number of times your image change was reverted that caught my attention and made me wonder what you're up to. The image changes went on for a while in December 06, then again in May 07. Mainly the only 'issue' I have is that your explanations leave a lot out. When you make your changes, you do a lot at once, you don't cover all of them in the edit summary, and some of the ones you DO explain, feel 'wrong' or like they're explaining the wrong thing. Deleting references when you edit without explanation? I think you'd be better served making one change at a time. Take one Paragraph, change it, wait and see. I know, I know, be bold, but since we're working as a team here, sometimes you have to make allowances :) -- Ipstenu (talk • contribs) 15:22, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
  • How about we give more time for some additional voices to weigh in on this before getting into another lengthy exchange among the same people who have already swapped plenty of words about this among ourselves? Doczilla 07:11, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
    Or you could simply have said: let's give other editors an opportunity to comment on this RfC. Yet, that wouldn't have sounded so polished and eloquent, would it "Doc".Netkinetic (t/c/@) 15:42, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay the whole page got refactored and that chaps me cause now 'conversations' that were in one section are moved around. Oy. Anyway. Asgardian is reverting Whizzer again. I've asked on the talk page Is there a reason you're doing what appears to be a sectional revert instead of a more careful copyedit? and his reply was Ipstenu, have included the new references. I've added the PH references that were mentioned (and needed), and done a modest tidy up of the FCB so it is less simplistic and more to the point. Now reads fairly well. - Except that what he's done is taken the old version, the one prior to the RFC, and restored that. As opposed to making new changes, or rewording things in new ways, or even taking one small section and fixing that. It appears he just reverts, in total, the sections he doesn't like, and in doing so deletes valid references, changes dates and explanations, and goes against the community decisions on the talk page. -- Ipstenu (talk • contribs) 13:54, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Do not believe Asgardian

We've been through this before -- the last time was maybe a year ago. He makes promises then reverts to his old ways -- and his promise here isn't even to follow the rules, it's to follow the rules when he wants to, deciding for himself what characters "deserve" a publication history and which don't.

The debate over Asgardian last year involved a contention that he was doing a school project involving disruption of Wikipedia.

His "cry wolf" argument and his obvious references toward me without the courtesy of stating so is a smokescreen. Instead of facing the issues and his own failings, he blames everyone but himself. There are many, many editors who are sick to death of Asgardian's self-aggrandizing, his refusal to follow guidelines, and his edit warring.

His continual fights with so many other editors, and his untrustworthiness have got to reach an end. One editor cannot keep breaking the rules and creating endless frustration for other editors. It is time to ban Asgardian from WikiProject Comics at the very least, and I will investigate whatever process it takes. --Tenebrae 16:30, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Re: "Maybe a year ago." I think you mean the administration noticeboard report in December. I doubt you mean the recent one in May, the various other 3RR discussions, or the other block. Asgardian has only been editing since September. See his edit history and the report history I tried to sum up, as I mentioned earlier on this page.[12]Doczilla 07:19, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
Okay, to avoid rehashing some of the same discussion, here are the admin noticeboard links for reference: [13][14] Doczilla 07:56, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
Mrph. I wouldn't go that far. As a 'blatant policy breaker' I think I'd label Asgardian as someone who can make good edits, knows a lot about Marvel, but makes me worry that I have to follow up on his edits to make sure his changes didn't remove data that should have stayed. On the whole, he's less annoying than a certain Batman editor whose gammer makes baby Wiki cry. While I agree Asgardian can be annoying, I think this is a bit much. I've never found him to be incivil, just not exactly a person who comes to the talk page and explains himself well. A lot of this frustration is from lack of communication, and I think that, with a little effort, that can be cleared up if Asgardian wants to do so. Course, we can't make anyone do anything. I still think a ban is waaay too hasty. -- Ipstenu (talk • contribs) 16:54, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
Here is a Wikipedia policy regarding bans:
Community ban
There have been situations where a user has exhausted the community's patience to the point where he or she has been indefinitely blocked by an administrator—and no one is willing to unblock them. Users blocked under these circumstances are considered to have been "banned by the Wikipedia community." Administrators who block in these cases should be sure that there is a consensus of community support for the block, and may note the block on a relevant noticeboard. The user should be listed on Wikipedia:List of banned users (under "Community").
I have asked the community at Wikipedia:Community sanction noticeboard to follow this debate, and I am in the process of finding last year's Asgardian debate. --Tenebrae 16:47, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm thinking it's time you take a break, Tenebrae. Your comments here show something bordering on a personal vendetta (It is time to ban Asgardian from WikiProject Comics at the very least, and I will investigate whatever process it takes.) It might be time to take a step back and evaluate your own actions as well. Don't let yourself get riled up here. Lastly, banning someone from WikiProject Comics doesn't really do anything, as anyone can edit any articles they like unless their account is blocked. Cordially, Kusonaga 16:54, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm not going to say much more, as this is seems to be getting heated. While Wikipedia has rules, it is not life or death. I would be concerned if I became someone's obsession. Let's work together. Off to a good start on Avengers as there was mutual editing as opposed to automatic reversion. Galactus still under discussion (no edit war there, as Talk shows. And where is the other body who insisted on their take?) as is Mephisto. If things get spiky again, may I suggest - as this will be my course of action - asking for a second opinion from another poster as opposed to reaching straight for the six-guns? It can only help. - Asgardian 01:12, 17 June 2007 (UTC)


Not a vendetta. Just the opposite. I wrote this in December on his (since blanked) talk page:

Please: Let's discuss this before anything escalates even further. You have knowledge and passion for this pop-cultural field, and speaking just for myself, I'd like to see you continue here contributing. Talk to us. Explain the going-against-exemplar thing. Let's work this out together. --Tenebrae 05:02, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I could give many other examples of months of good-faith efforts for which his response had been to insult me. The Good faith protocol specifies to show it until an editor's actions demonstrate otherwise. That is what you see happening here. --Tenebrae 00:40, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

No one has insulted you. You have at times been guilty of being condescending, but then some of what I have said in the past could also be construed as such. Tone can be hard to guage. That said, I say again that some of your comments are bordering on the obsessive. I almost get the impression that you feel you need to find my coffin and plunge a stake in my heart to stop me before I destroy Wikipedia and all existance.
So...what I would humbly suggest to the other readers/posters, is that someone other than Tenebrae monitor my edits, which he is very quick to revert if he feels wronged. I just don't believe he can be subjective anymore. This all needs a little less emotion and more reason. - Asgardian 08:08, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Dude, the reason this arguement seems "emotional" is because you tend to insight emotional responses through you "lack" of reasoning. I see what you edit because a lot of the things you do edit are on my watchlist but why would I want to get into an edit war with you if I don't agree with something you've reversed. And it can be obviously seen that an edit war is/has occured through looking at the article's edit history (and yeah it usually is between yourself and Tenebrae) so I don't bother. We've locked horns before over the Absorbing Man ages ago... possibly around the time Noah was building the Ark, but that ain't the point. I stopped reverting because I tend to get bored easy but someone also took over. I forget who. Anyway, the thing is, the reason you seem to be causing so much "strife" (and I use that word loosely) is because you tend to override everything when an article is first reverted and revert it back. But then it keeps on happening hence an edit war and a lot of time wasted. I, for one, am too selfish to monitor your edits because 1) I'm too lazy and 2) I'm not on this thing to babysit. A little consideration is needed and actually finding a mutual understanding if someone is constantly reverting your edits. As a side note, if you wanted to be taken a little more seriously about the "more reason, less emotion" quote, you shouldn't have added the first paragraph. You know, the one with the overdramatically stated "coffin/heart staking/destroy the wikipedia" part. Oh and as an offshoot of the side note, I don't think Asgardian should be banned. He does do some good work. Just gotta work on the temperament. StarSpangledKiwi formerly known as RIANZ 09:07, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Be Bold (but not reckless)

Just by the by, Ipstenu raised an excellent point. Wikipedia states "be bold in your edits" and yet that sometimes that seems to be counter-productive. Seems to be a tad grey. - Asgardian 01:12, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
The 'problem' is that being bold gets used as a defense for 'I'm right, you're wrong, and I'm going to be bold and do it anyway!' when ... that wasn't the idea at all. Being bold is, in a nutshell If an article's broken, fix it. Now, let's all define 'broken'.  ;) Mind you, I'm not really on either side here. I've noticed Asgardian being a bit too heavy handed for my liking and making reverts/changes without (IMO) proper justification or decent explanation. But banning? Way over-kill. Asgardian would you be willing to explain your edits more? Be not less bold, but make fewer changes to an article at once? Like if you want to change an image, just change the image - don't change it and make 10 other 'small' edits? Totally my opinion, but I think it would lend itself to some teamwork :) Show good faith and all :) -- Ipstenu (talk • contribs) 02:18, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed remedies

As there seems an overwhelming concensus that User:Asgardian has at least been contentious and even at times disruptive in editing and tone, please suggest potential remedies below. - jc37 11:50, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think banning him will do anything. Asgardian is too invested in Wikipedia for that to hold him back, he'll just register a new name, or edit through unnamed IP addresses. While I have seen him involved in many edit wars (for which I've avoided those articles because of it), he does seem to have good intentions. His attitude is what is the main problem here. Maybe put him on a "probation" status. Force him to propose the changes in the talk page before actually making any edits. -Freak104 13:42, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
While a forced probation makes a degree of sense, it relies on two things 1) Asgardian's desire to actually work with others and 2) that he won't sidestep it in exactly the same way you point out he can side step a ban.
It also requires that, daily, one or more editors set aside time to police his activities and bluntly revert his edits that haven't gone through a talk page proposal and fall under his disruptive pattern. I would also think it would require a caveat be put on his ability to edit his own talk page, since I would thin that the reverts should generate a warning on his talk pages that should, like a block warning or notice, remain for others to see what the editor has done. - J Greb 16:46, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm one of the people who brought this up, so I should volunteer to help police.--Tenebrae 17:13, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
We've gone through this before. Months ago, we reached a tentative agreement to have some kind of probationary status, but then nobody followed through with that. Asgardian had been open to doing it -- not thrilled about it, of course, but he'd been open to it, and then nobody implemented it. In terms of any kind of monitoring or mentoring, it would be great if it could be someone who hasn't been in the thick of any of these edit wars. Doczilla 17:21, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Which is fine...so long as it is a) not Tenebrae as he is far too involved and has cried wolf a few too many times and b) someone who knows their stuff. Seriously, I'll have a lot more respect for someone who has read the books. I only add sourced and accurate information. Format can be a point of content, but I'm only adding information that is missing or incorrect (and there's often a lot of it, a la Vision). As I said before, there are still dozens of articles in the ugh! category that need major work. I need help getting through these. As I soon plan to clean up a whole host of minor villains (a la Zzzax and Melter), an ally or two would be appreciated.
Asgardian 05:33, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunately what is being proposed here is, at best, a minder, not an ally. The editors that would be volunteering would be following you around and stopping you from foisting on the articles "Asgardian's personal formatting" where it is not in line with consensus, guidelines, and/or policies at an article, project, or Wikipedia level. For clarity, this is not, I repeat not a condemnation of the basic information you have to add to articles. It is about the format in which you are bound and determined must be kept.
Despite the friction between you and Tenebrae, he is a good choice to be one of the people operating in that function. But he should not be the only one doing it, if only because the minders will have to keep themselves honest as well as push you to work within policy, guidelines, and consensus.
Right now, looking at your actions and you statement that you have a "whole host" of article you want to tinker with, I have serious problems and worry that entire line of conversation may be moot. The bad faith you have show with your edits to Whizzer from just before the RfC the closed up to the present and on Vision (comics) when the protect there was dropped make me shudder at the number of new disasters could, and likely will, crop up. In that light, I would strongly urge you to reduce your editing until you either understand the guidelines well enough to work within them, or you are willing to work within them.
- J Greb 07:10, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
"The bad faith you have show with your edits". While I agree with Jc37's assessment above and that we should constructively move forward with a proposed course of action, I object at these type of comments being leveled at a fellow editor who is at least attempting dialogue. I have "serious problems" with your leveling of criticism towards him due to your personal history with this editor. However, unlike the tendency of a few to frequently throw "bad faith" at the drop of a hat, I will not in your case. Not that I disagree with the concerns raised, only the tone for which they are raised.
As to your statement relating to Tenebrae, "he is a good choice to be one of the people operating in that function". Because you say this it makes it so? Not casting aspersions on Tenebrae who is a fine editor in fact, yet objectively a third party not directly involved would be best to guide Asgardian. "Minders"? As in "mind your manners"? I think a good percentage of us here actually need this, myself included. "It is about the format in which you are bound and determined must be kept". Like article ratings perhaps? I think you, myself and others are guilty of trying to have our own way with our preconceived notions on necessary and unnecessary components/structures in articles. Yes there are templars, but there are based on very cryptically worded guidelines written by 1 to 3 individuals a year ago and expected to be followed by the entire community as laws set in stone. I know I'll get flamed by this, however if we are going to stick to our guns then lets make sure the guns are, in fact, loaded and the safety is off (metaphorically speaking). When an editor censures another as to their not following a templar or other "consensual" standard...show the link and the relevant discussion which established this to be so. Saying it is a fact doesn't mean it is.
I await the witty high-browed snipes. Regards. Netkinetic (t/c/@) 07:10, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Regardless of the irony ("Let's show some air of diplomacy and cordial dialogue...agreed?" followed by "I await the witty high-browed snipes"), I have to agree with some principles there. I have trouble imagining that anyone who has been involved in these 9-month-long edit wars can be an objective third party, no matter how hard we might try. Even if we can be fair, it would be hard for any other Wikipedians to swallow "impartial" during any later review. Are we talking about establishing a mentor trying to facilitate better editing or a probation officer waiting to bust him?
Unfortunately, some of this discussion might potentionally be rendered moot by Asgardian's latest 24-hour block (see User_talk:Asgardian#Blocked) combined with some strange things going on over in the Whizzer article (see Talk:Whizzer#.3F). Doczilla 07:50, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Doc, touche. Shouldn't have added the last paragraph, simply stating how I know how such dialogue usually ends up despite our best efforts. I agree, another party apart from the project would be best served in assisting any proposed mentoring (mentoring...not "minding" which comes across as condescending verbage, to be quite honest J Greb).Netkinetic (t/c/@) 17:51, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
I have something to say. When I read JGreb's comments, I was quite upset. In fact, I had to sit down and think about how I was going to respond without it sounding emotional. While blocked for 24 hours (for something very trivial - a disappointment in itself given I added Tenebrae's style touches and worked with him on the Black Knight entry. Just here to Talk, not Edit.), I could not in conscience let this go, as I believe that it was incorrect and did not address all the facts. I can work with Tenebrae - I just proved that on Black Knight. We are talking on Galactus, on which there was a Request For Comment opened after discussion had already started. I thank both Netkinetic and Doczilla for their words. Until I saw that, I was ready to quit. I've been trying, folks. I have a few ego issues with regard to my contributions, but have been giving ground on formatting. That said, I'm really finding some of these guidelines to rather vague, and at times are invoked for the wrong reasons.

Tenebrae does some fine work - I can see it on the other articles. That said, I feel he is simply too close to this. Some of his comments have been condescending, but then I haven't helped by automatically reverting past work. I think we are all in agreement, however, that calling "foul" on every edit I make is too much - and exhausting. I also showed the comments thus far to a third party, who said that while I need to improve, there was some victimisation going on here. I want this to work, and have admitted fault. I'm now discussing (a la Mephisto), and are still trying to the bottom of Whizzer as I still don't see how we got some of what we did and the problem with my suggestions (that said, we'll get there).

JGreb - peace. On villains, I refer to many of the Ugh! efforts. Check out the state of Melter, Zzzax, and Whirlwind before I rewrote them. I've also created several entries for many Thor foes that simply...didn't exist. Now folks can look up Mangog or the Dark Gods and go " cool, I didn't know that." I'm particularly proud of Thanos, which took something like 10 days of sourcing and reading to get right. Check out the state of that article before I contributed. I next plan to do the Iron Man foes. Check what little there is on Blacklash, Spymaster, Man-Bull etc. These characters are every bit as important as the big guns, and deserve a full article. Join in! If you like the Crimson Dynamo or whoever, help me out.

There is an all-star team here - we just have to agree on the hows and whys of who goes on court when!

Hiding will probably blast me for this, but I felt it needed to be said. See you in 24, or however long it is after he sees this...

Asgardian

  • I'm sorry you feel the block was for a trivial reason, because I think it goes to the heart of the problem. If you can't modify your editing style and learn to collaborate then this will end up at arbitration. Hiding Talk 10:05, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
First, I hope Hiding doesn't, at least for speaking up here... denegrating the reason for the block is another thing though (slight change there since Hiding posted while I was getting my thoughts together...). I agree with what Doc posted to your talk page. As much friction as there is among us (general term here), you of all of us have a right to respond to what's going on on this page. Doc is also right though that it may have been prudent to e-mail what you wanted posted to either Hiding, as the blocking Admin, or Jc, who set this in motion. Or even, since I believe you can still edit your own talk, having posted it there with a shouted ES to have it copied to here. I'm pretty sure most of us involved would have seen it and, if not copied it, at least read it.
Second, Doc's council about editing in stages, which I believe he also gave when GG brought this to ANI, is something you need to take to heart. The bulk changes, with little, no, or even misleading ES comments is part of what's getting you in trouble at Whizzer, and is explicitly what Hiding blocked you for on Blood Brothers.
Third, "Twice bitten, thrice very, very shy." I know some dislike the phrase I used before, but looking at your actions, there are quite a few that it fits. The best they could be called are "breaches of faith". They make me vary concerned about what is going to happen after the article RfCs you are engaged in close, let alone later discussions. In many ways the "breaches" serve as reminders for those of us who are/were involved in them or similar situations, making that much harder for trust to be extended. It's going to take a visible, sustained effort to get that trust back.
Last, looking back at that post... While the core of what's there still falls with my feelings, I can see where I went well OTT, especially with the "Apf" phrase and the structure of the last sentence. For that I'm sorry. It doesn't lessen though that the suggestion not necessarily to support the prose and layout styles you favor, but to get you to work within what is already set up.
- J Greb 10:31, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
J Greb, it would honestly serve you, and your position, far better by abandoning your continual references to bad and/or poor faith. Its one note...and while you may (and at times do) have legitimate concerns...all these terms end up accomplishing is to estrange the opposing party in a debate. Which does nothing to indenture good will which should be paramount on such a collaborate effort. Netkinetic (t/c/@) 17:59, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Actually , we seem to be getting back on even ground. Me aside, I'd like to raise two issues, and it is NOT my intent to "flame", but to get to the heart of some of these things that bug both myself and others.
1) What can be done about redefining some of these admittedly vague Guidelines? I realise this is probably a massive can of worms. Exemplars? This could be a discussion that could go on for weeks, but I feel the standard of some of the articles is outgrowing what were probably "pioneer" guidelines.
2) Objectivity in moderators. Before anyone goes to "Defcon 4", I raise this as a legitimate concern. As Doc can attest, I was once blocked and the feeling was the moderator didn't do their homework. Since there seem to be no secrets at present, I also feel the last block was unfair as I did insert Tenebrae's style touches and mentioned it in the Edit History. We seem to have reached a middle ground on PH (a la Black Knight and Avengers), and it's a shame this was not noted. This is NOT a shot at anyone - I'm just trying to get at these underlying principles as I feel there's some grey. I'm also still not sure that the RfC on the Whizzer was resolved in a clear fashion.
Thoughts?
Asgardian 08:16, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Fair things to bring up...
As for #1, the best place to try and get change on guidelines is to get a discussion going on the guideline talk pages with the proposed change or clarification. IIRC it was pointed out on the Comics proj talk page, by Hiding I think, that the Exemplars need to be revisited. And a similar coment was made re the guides for a SHB image. Unfortunately I don't think either has been acted on. But those are the places to start, not at the article level. And definitely not when other editors have pointed out the guideline currently in use.
As for point #2... you're right, that one is touchy, very touchy.
Looking at the differences between your last 2 edits on Blood Brothers:
  • Yes, you did put in in what I believe Tenebrae would cite as guideline required information for listing specific issues.
  • But, you also blanket reverted the following in the same edit:
    • SHB caption, taking it out of guideline format.
    • Same with the first appearance and creator lines.
    • From there, aside from your PH, all the cited issues break the formatting convention.
    • You converted what existed of the PH into an appearance list, something that has been argued back and for that should not be in the articles. And even though the guidelines, specifically the exemplars, as of yet don't bar that type of bibliography, they clearly mark it as being different from the PH.
    • Neither FCB is stellar. The before hangs together better grammar wise, but yours does have cites, albeit abbreviated ones.
    • The powers section looks like it just got a minor bump and the Footnote/Reference in this case is pa-tA-tO/pa-ta-tO so neither is really a factor.
The nutshell of this is you appear to have given a token while preserving almost all of your version of the article. And, by the ES list, you were informed that what you were doing was contrary to existing guidelines.
There are other problems with that chain of events:
  • Tenebrea should have embedded a link in his ES for the specific guideline he referred to.
  • One of you should have proposed taking the back and forth to the talk page somewhere between the 17th and 21st. Sadly, Tenebrea's last post to the talk page was the 27th of February, while your only post there is from after you block expired, and comment on a part of your edit 2 days after you made it and even then, it doesn't really match the edit.
I ask you though, if the article was taken back to the state it was in on the 7th of June, would you engage in a discussion on the talk page? A discussion where each item of contention is listed, and input is taken from yourself, Tenebrae, and anyone else who cares to comment. And when that discussion is wrapped up, and you have had ample opportunity to make you thoughts know on each point, are you willing to let the article stand based on those decision, even if they are not what you personally like?
- J Greb 09:43, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Let's depart from vague anecdotal references to "guidelines" i.e. "SHB caption, taking it out of guideline format" and "all the cited issues break the formatting convention". Please provide links to the precise section that address these "guidelines" and "convention" and the pertaining discussion that effected a consensus among the project that these were permissable to be inforced. Saying something is so doesn't make it so...and an admin and/or editor composing a guideline does not in and of itself make it a consensual guideline. Until these matters are nailed down, do not expect adherence amongst the greater community. Netkinetic (t/c/@) 03:10, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
    • I'm sorry you feel the block was unfair. I asked for a review at the admin noticeboard when I blocked you, nobody commented, so I can't know that anyone reviewed it, but that's the best I can do. You may want to look at that edit summary though. Is it marked as minor? Have you been informed what the minor edit box is for, and when you shouldn't mark things as minor? Does that edit summary cover every change you made, or is there stuff going on there that isn't covered, and are you involved in a dispute that would better be served being discussed on the talk page? As an admin, I've got to consider whether your edit was disruptive or productive. I lean on pages like WP:DISRUPT and WP:OWN and the like. In my opinion, your behaviour at Blood Brothers was disruptive. In the past we've protected pages where such disruption has occurred. It has been brought to my attention that that was the wrong thing to do. Blocks should be issued instead, to prevent the article being locked to non disruptive editors. Now I've got to look at the whole picture, work out where the consensus lies and who's disrupting. If there's no discussion on the talk pages, all I have to go on is edit summaries, edit contributions, rfc's, block logs and edit history. I've got to work out how to protect the article from further disruption. So if you think the block was way out of line, you consider what I had to weigh and what I had to go on. I've got a user who removes talk page messages, has been blocked before for edit warring, marks reversions as minor edits, doesn't make full edit summaries, seems to have ownership issues, has an issue with discussing problems on talk pages, has an open rfc where the consensus is that the user needs to modify their behaviour, and the user is ignoring guidance. I think J Greb summarises the edit for which you were blocked well enough up above. On those grounds, for me it's clear the block was warranted. I don't think there is any grey area. I think you need to modify your editing style. Otherwise this will end up at arbitration.
    • I'm sorry that you think reverting another user's edits, marking that reversion as minor, leaving a misleading edit summary and not even attempting to discuss the issue is a trivial thing. Hiding Talk 21:55, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Asgardian just did that exact problem again on the Absorbing Man page. He reverted an edit and marked it as minor. I had to revert it back. I also made some additional changes so that some additional problems associated with Asgardian's revert were fixed. He wanted story details in the 'Powers and abilities' section, which is not where they belong. -Freak104 19:30, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
That's not exactly the same. From what I can see that's the first time Asgardian has made that edit, and although it's marked minor it's a fair edit summary. I'd point out your revert is also marked as minor and I can't see any attempt to discuss the issue anywhere by either of you. That should be your next step, not a blind revert. As to the issue itself, I can see a case being made for both sides, so maybe you should both seek to involve other editors if you can't agree on an approach between you. At this point in the article's history, I can't see Asgardian as being disruptive. Hiding Talk 21:11, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
If you read my above comments you'll notice that I had previously mentioned trying to work this out with Asgardian before. I tried to discuss it with him on his talk page, but he never actually talked. No he hadn't done that exact edit before, but that's because the information was entered differently. I tried to enter it in a different way so that he was more accepting of its inclusion. Obviously I was wrong. I marked it as minor because if his was minor than so was mine, because they just canceled each other out. -Freak104 04:47, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
This isn't the place for this. I've placed a comment in the Edit summary on the how's and why's. This is a minor edit. Go to AM Discussion page if necessary.

Asgardian 10:28, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I started a discussion section on the Absorbing Man talk page. Could other editors please put in their two cents? I'm going to be out of contact for the next month or so, so hopefully someone can help me out here. -Freak104 19:44, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request for advice

So I just had some good hard work I put on in the Wonder Man (Marvel Comics) page (sorry for the lack of link) deleted by Asgardian. Frankly, this is the first time period some good hard work of mine was deleted ... ever. (Some sentences of mine vanished from Guy Gardner). I wanted to know what, if anything, I should do. I don't want to run off and do something rash. I'm not even sure I -understand- how to revert.

Lots42 22:50, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Looking at this, it looks like the same problems that have been pointed out above:
  • Massive revert marked as a minor edit.
  • Changes made that are not referrenced in the Edit Summary.
  • Reverts that return to what is substantually Asgardian's last version of the article.
It doesn't look like much has changed. - J Greb 07:04, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, for good or bad, I did revert the changes to Guardians of the Galaxy...just putting the cards on the table. Lots42 07:36, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Four months since I quit editing Wikipedia because of Asgardian and he's still pissing people off using the same arrogant tactics. Ban the @$$hole. CovenantD 07:01, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, that's very mature.

Asgardian 03:45, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Really that is the reason, CovD? I thought it was because of this:
   * 20:38, 23 March 2007 Crum375 (Talk | contribs) blocked "CovenantD (contribs)" (anon. only, account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 1 week (Repeat offender, 3RR violation on Mjolnir (comics))
   * 13:33, 11 March 2007 Stifle (Talk | contribs) blocked "CovenantD (contribs)" (anon. only, account creation blocked, autoblock disabled) with an expiry time of 24 hours (3RR violation at 300 (film) - last block set wrongly)
   * 13:33, 11 March 2007 Stifle (Talk | contribs) unblocked CovenantD (contribs) (unblock to fix)
   * 13:32, 11 March 2007 Stifle (Talk | contribs) blocked "CovenantD (contribs)" (anon. only, account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 24 hours (3RR violation at 300 (film))
   * 01:55, 1 January 2007 Hiding (Talk | contribs) unblocked CovenantD (contribs) (Issue already dealt with, mea culpa)
   * 01:50, 1 January 2007 Hiding (Talk | contribs) blocked "CovenantD (contribs)" with an expiry time of 24 hours (violation of 3RR at Avengers (comics))
   * 18:55, 11 December 2006 Sam (Talk | contribs) blocked "CovenantD (contribs)" with an expiry time of 24 hours (violation of 3rr)
   * 18:42, 5 September 2006 Where (Talk | contribs) blocked "CovenantD (contribs)" with an expiry time of 6 hours (violation of 3rr)
   * 12:48, 22 July 2006 Essjay (Talk | contribs) blocked "CovenantD (contribs)" with an expiry time of 24 hours (Disruption: incivility and borderline personal attacks at RFCU)
  • After a lengthy history of "Disruption: incivility and borderline personal attacks", I'd watch who you call an @$$. Although at least you are well qualified to speak on what makes an @$$ apparently. Regards.Netkinetic (t/c/@) 03:34, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
And how does responding in kind make things better, Netkinetic? --GentlemanGhost 13:20, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Well it certainly doesn't make matters worse when you think about a community condoning persistent violators of WP:CIV like CovenantD, who rather than trying to resolve issues proceeds to use inflamatory comments towards fellow editors. May I ask what is the vested interest in defending someone who...demonstratively (see above if you so doubt) has received administrative censure over a large period of time. Regards.Netkinetic (t/c/@) 05:23, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Now User:Asgardian is threatening here to wipe out Blood Brothers (comics) because, he says, he created it, and it's not being edited the way he likes. Editor after editor after editor here tells of enduring Asgardian's disruptive behavior. It's neither fair nor right that so many people are in constant battle with the same one person continuously. --Tenebrae 15:59, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Actually, it is comments like these that are disruptive. You need to stop making assumptions. My comment - on the Blood Brothers Talk Page for those interested - was in reference to your attempt to overrule a moderator and insist on your version of said article. Hiding's comments speak for themselves. Dumbfounded by this behaviour, I merely expressed the sentiment that I wished I had never created said article, given all the misery that has followed. If someone were to wipe it, I would indeed see it as no loss. If it stays, then the issue needs to be resolved. As for being in "constant battle" with others, I think "others" these days would seem to be just yourself.
Tenebrae, as another poster indicated, perhaps it is time to take a break as you seem to be getting too close to all this. Yes, Wikipedia editing is a noble pursuit and even fun (mostly), but it is not life or death.
Asgardian 23:15, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Follow-up from my post on Talk:Blood Brothers (comics):
As I commented there, Asgardian, you may need to be more careful in how you phrase things. Past history is going to color how others read you comments, for good or for ill. Your explanation here is clearer than on the article's talk page, and less likely to be read as OWNerish.
And Tenebrae, you need to watch the phrasing as well. Yes, you paraphrased a section Asgardians comment, but you did so in what looks like a blatant attempt to spin the comment and use it as a weapon. He did not say he was going to wipe the article, though his comment can be read as a support of a potential AfD.
As for others: Asgardian, it looks like Tenebrae isn't the only editor you are in conflict with, he just seems to be the most vocal. For myself, I applaud that you've stopped marking non-minor edits as minor. Though I'd still like to see you move away from the "multiple edits in one go" style.
Last thing, I'll rephrase my closing comment to Tenebrae from the article's talk page: Do what you need to to calm down and look at that debate again from a less heated POV. In this Asgardian has a good point, you actions are starting to look unreasoning and vindictive, no matter how justified some of the underpinnings maybe, or may have been.
- J Greb 02:18, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Recurrence: October 2007

User:Asgardian, after laying low for some time, has returned to his blanket-revert, edit-warring ways. He is currently edit-warring at, that I know of, Speed Demon (Marvel Comics) — and since early September has been so disruptive that he was blocked twice. Then, as in the past, he played nice until becoming disruptive again (and as usual blanking his talk in attempts to hide the issues).

He has been brought up for censure many times. How many times more must we all go through this before he can be banned? --Tenebrae 18:54, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Note: Can we at least ask him to live up to the following, from his community sanction discussion?
If he reverts any article more than once per 24 hour period or more than 2 times in any 7 day period or more than 3 times in any 30 day period then brief blocks could follow, up to a week in the event of repeat offenses. After 5 blocks the maximum block shall increase to one month, and after 10 blocks increase to six months.
The above per admin User:Hiding. --Tenebrae 19:01, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
He has made these blanket reverts, often with misleading edit summaries, per Revision history of Speed Demon (Marvel Comics):
  1. 17:59, 22 October 2007 Asgardian (Talk | contribs)
  2. 03:57, 18 October 2007 Asgardian (Talk | contribs)
  3. 00:47, 17 October 2007 Asgardian (Talk | contribs)
  4. 02:08, 16 October 2007 Asgardian (Talk | contribs)
-Tenebrae 19:07, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
I think it is J Greb's difs that he posted here that are the clinchers - essentially a series of blanket reverts with misleading summaries. Its things like this which make me avoid articles he is heavily involved with as life really is too short. (Emperor 00:21, 23 October 2007 (UTC))
Yes, life is too short, which makes me wonder at Tenebrae's obsession with me. Very, very quick to judge. I note with some amusement that a scan of our respective Edit Histories of recent weeks show him involved in scraps aplenty, while mine has been solid series of rewrites of bad or non-existant articles. Heck, horror of horrors, I even worked with a number of people to improve "Marvel vs. DC". Outrageous. I must stop this.

Asgardian 03:51, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Your personal attack is filled with assumption and innuendo, while I have cited specific examples of your edit-warring. As well, many editors would disagree with your self-serving characterization of your own edits. And your obfuscating use of sarcasm indicates an indefensible position.
You can try to turn this into an attack on me, but the objective fact is that many editors are continually in disagreement with your edits and find you disruptive. You have been blocked on occasion, while I have not. What does that tell you about my "scraps"?
You also lie in your edit summaries, as editors other than me have noted. At least two articles have had to be protected because of your constant blanket reverts. You cannot keep disrupting Wikipedia, and maybe this will be the time that the formal censure a number of editors have wanted will finally take.--Tenebrae 04:25, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
It is hardly an attack on you, whereas you accusing me of lying is. You really need to be more objective before you reach for the keyboard. Take guidance from cooler heads such as Doc and work with us on improving articles.

Asgardian 01:11, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I provide evidence above, in User:J Greb's comments. Do you really want me to go through and provide a detailed list of other editors saying that your edit summaries lie? Here is one example: "(cur) (last) 01:21, 17 October 2007 J Greb (Talk | contribs) (6,885 bytes) (That was not a tidy=up. slight or otherwise. It was a blanket revert to the same editor's last version." A blanket revert here said instead "(Added captions. Still much easier reading.)" A huge change listed here involving 10,743 bytes and multiple-paragraph chunks you give as "Some minor touches to add clarity...."
These are just three examples. I stand by my statement. --14:32, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Speed Demon (Marvel Comics) is the latest article that has had to be protected because of Asgardian's edit-warring.
Here is what one other editor has said at Talk:Speed Demon (Marvel Comics) about Asgardian's unilateral declarations:
Do you realize how strongly a statement like that reeks of WP:OWN? Saying that you'll address something in a few days and "we'll go from there" comes across as saying that you get to decide when and how everybody else has to edit this one. Wryspy 05:36, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Please consider this one more bit of evidence at Asgardian's disregard for other editors' opinions and consensus. As I've asked Asgardian on two Talk pages, "[H]ow anyone can willfully disregard so many like opinions by so many experienced editors both working and speaking in good faith. How can everyone be wrong and you right?" --Tenebrae 13:55, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Smoke and mirrors again. One user's opinion does not make anything fact. Said user also made an assumption re: how a sentence was written. You are then making a second assumption based on this.

Asgardian 22:54, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Another Misleading Summary

Vision (comics) had an edit summary indicating an incorrect fact was fixed. Far, far more then that was done, including, oddly enough, removal of material such as Amalgam information. Lots42 09:50, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Some of the Amalgam information is incorrect. Someone seems to be making a game of "making up" characters without citing an issue.

Asgardian 22:54, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Not the Amgalgam information that is currently there for Vision. It's in fact true. I found this by, nudge, nudge, googling (I will attempt to add a reference after this). Also, even -apart- from the Amalgam info, the edit summary was entirely misleading. Lots42 23:48, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Summary of the debate

The situation was taken to arbitration, see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Asgardian-Tenebrae. Hiding T 11:23, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.