Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Asgardian

Evidence
Here is the evidence presented by Boz, but expanded so editors are not required to click through the links. I find this layout a little easier to read.

You are welcome to fix any mistakes I have made, Boz you can add these expansions to your section.

WP:CIVIL

 * 1) To User talk:Rtkat3 "you reinserted badly written material with poor grammar; POV: missing appearances; no sources and an in-universe perspective...but no one will defend material that is sub-standard...By all means contribute, but please ensure that said contributions are beneficial."  23:03, 7 February 2009.
 * 2) At User_talk:Daniel_Case: "Thanks for that completely unnecessary note. There is a user lurking at present whose comments are usually both blunt and obnoxious, and for all his claims of the need to improve articles, he has thus far only created more work courtesy of his substandard writing...Perhaps your user name should be mr. doublestandard." 20:32, 6 November 2008.
 * 3) At User_talk:Nightscream: "The editor who add his comments in the above-mentioned link is unfortunately all emotion and no logic." 09:25, 6 October 2008.,
 * 4) At Talk:Ultron: "Well Mr. Clean-Up...We also now have to rework many of your "additions" as was the case on Galactus due to poor grammar etc." 04:34, 6 November 2008.

Edit warring
1. Edit warring (both full reverts and partial reverts):

WP:OWN

 * 1) At User_talk:DrBat:  "...where you keep falling down on the Rhino article is you keep reverting back to an inferior version. As you've been told, we adhere to the Wiki-correct lead and other peripherals, which the old version you keep reverting to lacks. The current version needs to remain. With the exception of one section, the article is almost complete and avoids the "list" format, which no one wants." 01:22, 8 October 2009.
 * 2) At Administrators'_noticeboard, "User:DrBat and User:Asgardian page banned from Abomination (comics) and Rhino (comics)": " DrBat continued to revert at Rhino to an inferior version...It took hours to complete Abomination, and Rhino was in fact almost finished."
 * At: User talk:Hiding: "...I feel this was an unfair and hasty ban (one article as finished and supported by others and the other was one session from being completed)..."

Reverting to "Wiki-correct version"

 * 1) At Juggernaut (comics): "10 days and no comment/interest. Rv to Wiki-correct version as per DCIncarnate. All reasons provided at Talk." 04:46, 27 November 2009. ,
 * 2) At Juggernaut (comics): "Restoring corrected WIKI-CORRECT version.This was totally unnecessary and uncivil." 10:57, 15 December 2009.,
 * 3) At Juggernaut (comics): "Retaining wikii-correct changes; go to Talk page if there are issues. Added another link" 23:27, 9 November 2009.,
 * 4) At Rhino (comics): "Not an argument; and I've solved it anyway. In the downtime, we'll keep the Wikicorrect stuff." 03:20, 8 October 2009.,
 * 5) At Rhino (comics): "Corrected first section of PH and retained Wikicorrect peripherals" 06:18, 4 October 2009.,
 * 6) At Rhino (comics): "OK, added Wikicorrect lead; succinct sourced paragraphs and peripherals around the section in debate. Added detail to follow." 05:44, 3 October 2009.

Incomplete/inaccurate edit summaries
2. Incomplete/inaccurate edit summaries:
 * 1) At Ms._Marvel: "Banishing bot blah" (logs in to revert the bot's reversions of his edits as an IP),
 * 2) At Juggernaut (comics): "Added 3rd party source" 02:33, 13 December 2009.,
 * 3) At Dormammu: No comment. 00:58, 7 December 2009.,
 * 4) At Dormammu: m (minor). 02:29, 16 August 2009.

Removal of maintenance tags
Removal of maintenance tags as part of a larger edit:
 * 1) At Ms._Marvel, removes "" ,
 * At: Dormammu, removes "" ,
 * At: Mephisto_(comics): removes "     ,
 * At: Mephisto_(comics): removes "" ,
 * At: Scarlet_Witch: removes "" ,
 * At: Eternity_(comics):

Ikip 16:33, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Outside view by Cutno
We have tried that many times over the years. It usually doesn't help. I'm very very tired of this by now. Dave (talk) 11:49, 20 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Patience is a Virtue. One may learn to speak in a year, but may take up to a decade to learn how to listen. It goes both ways. Focus on the meat of the matter, and do not be distracted by petty arguments that do not effect the main. --Cutno (talk) 00:59, 21 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Patience, like any principle or virtue, is not absolute, and not infinite. It must be balanced against all other principles, and within the bounds of reason. Milquetoast non-solutions like "patience is a virtue" are not part of the solution, they're part of the problem, as is the remark that all parties are guilty of "bickering", the euphemistic labeling of Asgardian's behavior as merely "assertive", and the suggestion that more questions need to be asked of him. It is this lack of decisiveness, and unwillingness to draw a line in the sand, even after all the copious evidence of his behavior that's been presented, that only enables Asgardian. I'm also unclear on who you think needs to do more "listening".


 * The truth is that despite the natural differences present in any group of people, the various editors here mostly get along fine, and do not really "bicker" much, Asgardian's behavior is not "assertive", but manipulative, dishonest, abusive and disruptive, and asking questions is pointless of someone who has made it his practice to completely stonewall in reaction to such attempts, as has been made clear on the project page.


 * This has been going on for years now, and we are at a point where insisting on continued patience is no longer reasonable, and simply ignores the nature of the problem. Nightscream (talk) 02:08, 21 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Then you are at a deadlock. Neither side wins or loses. This will probably need more of administrative attention then previously. --Cutno (talk) 02:26, 22 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I am retracting my statement. Since this has been going on for awhile, seek Mediation, or go Arbitration. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cutno (talk • contribs) 02:33, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I have suggested Mediation before to Asgardian and David A, although they didn't seem interested in the idea. I'm hoping that, if things continue the way they have been, that Mediation will still be possible rather than having to resort to Arbitration. BOZ (talk) 12:40, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't understand why neither party has not tried it (Mediation). Certainly this cannot go on, and neither wants to go to Wiki-court over this... --Cutno (talk) 23:15, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Because I have tried agreements in the past, and he breaks his word at first opportunity, misdirects, regularly uses rationalisations that can be used against his behaviour in simultaneous editing at other pages, and so on. At this point I'm so used to getting lied to and insincere sarcasm-cloaked-as-civility from him that I can't see how anything he says can can be trusted. I'm also genuinely very very spent of energy from him and other fanatic misinformation-mongers I've repeatedly encountered here over the years, and barely even have the energy to type even brief responses anymore. It's hard to manage the focus for any participation at all. (If something turns into enough of a forced time-spending bother, I usually won't have the energy to handle it adequately, or do it at all anymore.) Dave (talk) 12:43, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Why not both you and him take a break from the article? Cutno (talk) 17:23, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Articles - there are multiple. :( The disputes tend to cycle around from half-a-dozen articles or so. BOZ (talk) 18:22, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Asgardian's response
I'm not going to respond to all aspects of Asgardian's responses, but would like to address six of them, in order to show how he employs the same behavior he’s accused of when responding to charges pertaining to it.


 * "Incomplete/inaccurate edit summaries" - again, where is the offence? What is so damning about my edits as opposed to the thousands of other daily edits, many of which involve vandalism?

Inaccurate or inappropriate edit summaries violate WP:Edit summary. Using deceptive edit summaries in order to deliberately obscure activities that violate policy or would be seen as contentious or subject to dispute by many other editors is clearly unacceptable. By saying "Where is the offence?", Asgardian is claiming to not understand this. (See the charge about his removal of maintenance tags below for more information on his use of edit summaries to obscure his activities.)

In addition, he uses the "You, Also" or "Them, Also" Fallacy--pointing to activities by others that are unacceptable, as if doing this bears any relevance to his own, or serves to mitigate them. It does not. Wikipedia deals with vandalism. Wikipedia deals with disruptive editing like the kind exhibited by Asgardian. The idea that these are mutually exclusive points on an Either/Or spectrum is false, as both can be addressed on an individual case-by-case basis, and indeed are. If you want to refute an accusation against you, you do so. You do not attempt to misdirect the process by pointing to similar or even worse behavior by others. The two are not pertinent.
 * "Reverting to "Wiki-correct version" - what is the point of listing this statement? I randomly clicked on three of the examples, and all they demonstrate are my attempts to try and communicate with inexperienced editors and explain how things are done - in this case the editors are Ghidorah and DrBat. Blind reverts and insults (eg. being called a "troll") from them, as opposed to my constructive comments in the Edit Summaries. A thank you for my patience would seem to be more order.

This is an example of Asgardian again speaking as if his irritation with newbies, or those he disagrees with, justifies engaging in WP:OWN-type behavior. It doesn't. Referring to your own edits as "Wiki-correct", and by implication, those of others are all "incorrect", is an example of WP:OWN-type behavior, and is rather obnoxious. When reverting, one should cite policy, consensus discussions, Manual of Style, widely accepted rules of writing, etc, and if there is disagreement, discuss it.

Moreover, I clicked on all six of those links myself, and could not find anyone calling Asgardian a "troll", nor a ubiquity of "inexperienced editors", as five out of those six editors are experienced ones. This charge against Asgardian remains unrefuted.
 * "Removal of maintenance tags as part of a larger edit" - again, where is the offence? There have been several discussions re: 3rd party sources and the inherent problems. I actually resolved this issue myself by finding and using a 3rd party source text. The very person who wrote this RfC - BOZ - says as much: .

Removal of maintenance tags, when the editor removing them has not fixed the problem highlighted by the tags in question, is not acceptable, violates Wikipedia policy, and Asgardian does not point to any such "discussion" that mitigates this. Looking through all six of the diffs that were provided as evidence of Asgardian doing this confirms that he indeed remove tags highlighting the need for third party sources to the articles. In none of these edits did Asgardian provide a valid rationale for doing this, and in four of the six, he didn't even make a mention of the fact that he was doing this. In the first he does not mention removing the tags. The second is accompanied by the word "Correction" as its entire edit summary. There is no edit summary at all for the third. The fourth again contains no mention of the tags. Only in the final two does Asgardian even make mention of the sources. (This also goes to his aforementioned use of deceptive or incomplete edit summaries.) Of those final two, he mentions adding "accurate sources", but they're primary sources, the precise problem highlighted by the tag that he removed. In the last one, he says, "Added reference. There is no such third party ref yet and we can't tag every article". In the first place, whether there are third party references is a matter of being patient while one searches for them, something that is harder to do if editors are not made aware by such tags that they're needed. You cannot simply remove a maintenance tag because you're struck with the hopeless feeling that they're aren't any. Whether it's possible to tag "every article" on Wikipedia is beside the point. The point is that adding those tags is what's necessary.

As for the link that Asgardian provides at the end of this comment about BOZ agreeing that Asgardian himself resolved this issue, it does nothing of the sort, and bears zero relationship Asgardian's prior behavior, except, perhaps to bolsters it the case against him by refuting the rationale Asgardian employed in that last edit summary. At that page, BOZ is informing everyone that Asgardian found a reference book by Mike Conroy, and used it to provide needed third party references to some articles, three of which he provides the diffs for. The book came out in October 2004, five years before the six edits in question, thus disproving Asgardian’s assertion in that last edit summary that there were no third party refs, and illustrating how one can't just remove tags because they're too lazy or fatalistic to either search for sources, or be patient while someone else does. Please note that those diffs show edits Asgardian made to Ms Marvel on May 10, 2009, to Dormammu on Aug 24, to Mephisto on Aug 24 and Nov 25, to Scarlet Witch on Nov 18, and Eternity on Aug 9. The three edits by Asgardian that BOZ showed to other on that Comics page were to Mephisto on Dec 5, Rhino on Dec 7, and Dormammu on Dec 7. Asgardian is arguing that because he found a book to act as a source, it resolves the issue of his removal of those maintenance tags 4 - 7 months earlier. This is false. Removal of such tags is only acceptable if you're adding the source during the same edit, or thereabouts. You don't remove them against policy, find a source months later, and then say it "resolves" the issue. It may resolve the the need for sources, but that does not mean that it resolves the issue of an editor violating policy months prior, and nowhere on that Comics Project page does BOZ "say as much." Asgardian’s assertion that BOZ said this is a blatant and deliberate distortion.


 * "Alleged ownership claims" - this is opinion. Nothing more. Wikipedia requires that we show good faith. I, like everyone else, am allowed to edit on Wikipedia. Such comments are not outrageous or illegal. And once again, with regards to those examples I as the one doing the majority of the sourcing and editing, which took hours. Others can of course contribute, so long as the edits are productive, which was not the case on several occasions.

Asgardian's dismissal of others' statements as opinion is another common tactic when his behavior is called into question. The fact that a conclusion, or an accusation based on it, is an “opinion”, does mean that it exhibits lesser confidence. Much of the material assembled during processes like this, after all, constitutes opinions. If Asgardian wishes to invalidate or falsify these accusations, then he must show how the evidence or reasoning employed to form those opinions is flawed, or how they do not lead to the conclusion in question. Moreover, why does he employ this dismissal for this charge, but not the others? Is he implying that all the others are facts?

His subsequent comments are also irrelevant. Whether behavior that constitutes ownership behavior is "not outrageous or illegal" is beside the point. If he wishes to argue that his behavior does not violate WP:OWN, then he needs to employ reasoning and evidence to illustrate that counterargument. Saying it's not outrageous or illegal does not serve this function. Neither does his once again painting himself as a lone source of good work, slogging away for hours by doing the majority of sourcing and editing. Doing this does not justify violating WP:OWN, nor does it show that you have not done so.


 * "Apparent incivility towards other users": The first is actually very reasonable, and advice to a serial offender. Two more are from 2008. 2008? This is reaching. I've learned a great deal since that time, and while I believe that those two editors were in error, would frame things another way. I am happy to apologize right now. The last is a tad smarmy, but again was in response to some not so good editing. My comments to inexperienced editors have changed considerably, as evidenced here: .

The fact that some examples are from just over a year ago (a year and two months and a year and three months) has no bearing on the charge, as they illustrate his behavior, in conjunction with more recent examples, which are not from late 2008. Mind you, if Asgardian apologized back then when these statements were made, and ceased that behavior, then yes, bringing them up during this RfC would be inappropriate. But he did not do this. He instead employs a type of rope-a-dope by refusing to concede that his comments are inappropriate or stonewalling entirely during the initial conflict, and then claiming when his behavior is being reviewed a later date that he has "improved" or apologizing, while continuing to exhibit such behavior. This is a form of the Passive Voice, because it allows him to avoid either humbling himself when the act occurs, or offering a counterargument that directly refutes the specific reasoning offered against him. Offering an apology devoid of any profundity, or that even directly addresses the specific editors that he treated this way, also allows him to put on a better face when his behavior is under scrutiny, particularly by those not closely familiar with his history, and this is not the first time he has done this. If he was sorry then, then why did he not apologize to those editors back then? And if he did not agree then that he was wrong, then when did he experience the epiphany in which he realized that he was, and why didn't he apologize then? Because of this, these extremely late after-the-fact "apologies" come across as completely insincere. If you doubt this, consider more recent examples not mentioned by BOZ, like his May 2009 comments about "hosing down" User: DaveA and another editor. Or his August 2009 comments, in which he casts aspersions on DaveA's "medical issues", how his edit summaries "smack of obsession", and how he thinks DaveA is "unbalanced", "unhinged" and can imagine him "shrieking at the computer". When I tried to advise Asgardian that this behavior was not appropriate, did Asgardian apologize to Dave? No, he simply rattled off a non sequitur as rationalization for this behavior, claiming that Dave's edits justified this behavior. Claiming this, and insisting as much even when he is told that this is false, is another recurring behavior by Asgardian. Only when he is later scrutinized for this behavior does he claim "improvement", which is hard to do when he insisted all along that he was right, and never expressed to others when he came to the realization that he wasn't. It is for this reason that this apology by him should not be given much weight. There is no indication that Asgardian now believes that edits that anger him do not justify inappropriate comments, or that such comments will not occur in the future when some newbie or other editor indeed irritates im.


 * The Talk:Red Hulk is not a good choice. The editor - Nightscream - whom I was in dispute with made a fairly large faux pas and took it upon himself to lock the article. This was questioned by others (as was an unwarranted block against myself) and his administrator privileges called into question. That said, yes, this is one instance in which I feel I could have been smarter, and my recent edits and attempts to speak with other editors reflect this.

Notice how he never actually directly refutes or addresses any of the specific reasoning or evidence I offered for this incident. His response consists of two things: Pointing to an error in administrative judgment on my part that I already conceded in order to misdirect attention from his behavior (another example of his belief that pointing to behavior by others has any bearing on, or somehow mitigates, his own), and offering a passive concession, by claiming that he "should've been smarter," without offering any specifics or depth. Again, why is he admitting he should've been smarter now, when he never did so then, and refused to address the charges then? Again, did he not revert during a concession discussion? Isn't reverting during a concession discussion the behavior that resulted in his last unreversed block? If so, then why did he do this? Why did he not answer this point when it was brought up then? And since he insisted on stonewalling on this point then, and never gave any indication that any aspect of his behavior back then was wrong, why is he doing so now? And if he is doing so now, why won't he explain which behavior was could've been "smarter"? The answer is simple. Asgardian either does not believe he was wrong, or doesn't care. He simply wishes to gloss over the entire AfD process. Nightscream (talk) 07:33, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

.........

And if more evidence was needed that some editors who try to intervene are not helping, as they seem to have difficulty looking closely at Asgardian's behavior, or seeing the threadbare nature of the fallacies and falsehoods he offers in response, Scott Free's comments on the RfC page, in which he says he only looked at the Rhino and Abomination articles, fit the bill perfectly. According to him, this was caused by Asgardian mainly working with "mainly less experienced editors", the conflict is between "two sides" that need to make concessions, Asgardian improves many articles, and these problems have occurred on comics articles because comic book editors complain about stuff the editors on other articles would not.

In fact, the conflict is not between "two sides" or "mainly less experienced editors". It's between a serial policy violator and at 15 different editors, at least eight of whom are administrators, and/or far outstrip Asgardian in experience, as measured by both edit count and how long they've been here. These are mostly rational, calm, thoughtful editors and administrators in good standing, who, like any other editor or group of editors, sometimes disagree with one another, but who mostly do so in a polite, friendly manner, who usually resolve disputes adroitly, and who have earned mutual respect from one another. A number of them have provided exhaustive evidence displaying unacceptable behavior by Asgardian over a period of a few years now, evidence that conclusively points to one conclusion, a conclusion that Asgardian has not only failed to invalidate, but only illustrate further with more of the same behavior. To focus on two articles, as Scott Free has, and ignore the sheer volume of evidence amassed here, and conclude that this is a situation in which both "sides" need to make concessions, implies that neither side can be said to be right by any objective measure, which is perverse. To claim that these concerns would not be brought up concerning other types of articles, not only assumes that editors don't work on other types of articles (my own Talk Page shows the four distinct areas in which I concentrate my activities), but implies that there is something insular or wrong with comic book article editors, which is insulting, and does a disservice to all the hard work these editors have done over the years, and here on this RfC. Perhaps, Scott, you should read the rest of the page, or even one summary, to glean a more accurate picture of Asgardian's activities. As it stands now, you're just part of the problem. Nightscream (talk) 08:18, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

6 Questions for Asgardian
If I'm mistaken in any of this, I'd like to ask Asgardian some follow-up questions about his rebuttal. I expect that he'll either stonewall again by not responding, or employ the same sort of intellectually dishonest reasoning in response, but I would like nothing better than to be proven wrong.

1.  In what way is pointing to questionable behavior by others relevant to, or serves to mitigate, such behavior by yourself? If you agree that it does not, why did you do this with regard to both the charge of inaccurate or incomplete edit summaries, and my error during the Red Hulk, which I conceded as soon as it was pointed out, was swiftly resolved, and which I already mentioned on the RfC page for transparency? If this was not an attempt at misdirection or conflation by you, then what was the purpose of bringing this up?

2.  Even if we assume, hypothetically, that your edits during a given dispute, or even in general, display better adherence to given policies, guidelines or consensus discussions, would you at least concede that casually referring to them as “wiki-correct” may at least seem off-putting to others, who might perceive such wording as matter-of-fact, and might perceive you as implying that your edits are “correct” as a matter of course, while theirs are not? Would you at least entertain the possibility that making reference the specific policies as a rationale would lessen this problem, not only by dispensing with this language, but by making clear which policies or guidelines you’re referring to?

3.  How does providing a reference for material in an article or articles justify or resolve the problem of removing maintenance tags requiring them four to seven months prior? Do you challenge the policy interpretation that removing such tags is not permitted, unless you happen to be providing the references during the same edit?

4.  In what way is a charge against you invalidated by virtue of it being an opinion? Aren’t all or most conclusions in processes such as this one opinions? Isn’t the issue whether the underlying reasoning or evidence offered for it is sound or not? If so, then why do you not address that? Why focus on the fact that the conclusion is an opinion? How is this relevant?

5.  You claim that charges from 14 months ago and 15 months ago are “reaching”, and that you apologize. But when did you come to the realization that you were wrong in these instances? If you knew you were wrong then, then why did you not say so then? Also, you made inappropriate comments to DaveA in May and August of last year (see above), and when I advised you that this was wrong, you refused to apologize, and insisted you were right. Why is this? How is anyone to know which instances you’re talking about, which arguments on policy you’re conceding to, and which editors you’re apologizing to? If no one knows your mindset on any of these issues, then how do they know if they’re resolved?

6.  Do you do you not concede that you reverted during a consensus discussion on Red Hulk, and that doing this is what led to your last unreversed block? And if you do have some justification for this, why did you not offer it when it happened? Which specific aspect of your behavior do you believe “could have been smarter”, and why did you not mention this then? Why are you averse to saying such things when they happen, and prefer instead to making vague allusions to them months or years later, without telling anyone what precisely you’re referring to? Nightscream (talk) 07:33, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Whoa! One look at this immediately tells anyone that this editor has some issues with me, and possibly a personal grudge (being called on inappropriately blocking an article whilst editing the same article and being challenged on subjective blocks of other editors), especially when there has been no contact with this editor for many, many months. This is an over-reaction, is subjective and indicates that any response will be met with negativity and possible attacks. I think the sensible course here is to say nothing in response to these allegations. I have already spent hours compiling material for the first response, and have no wish to repeat this.

Once again, none of my edits in recent months have been outrageous. I am in truth only in frequent conflict with one other editor who while well-meaning takes things too far (eg. wishing to argue every sentence) and makes very inappropriate comments (I have taken no action thus far, but a hard look at this person's edits over the last month paint a fairly telling picture). This person is in need of possible mentorship. What I require is a little more support when dealing with more inexperienced editors, as my case indicates. Thank you. Asgardian (talk) 04:32, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * While I don't really have a score in this one way or the other, I think I want to respond to this. Asgardian, whether or not you're in the right here, there is at least four people who have an issue with you, as they've been so kind as to say as much on the project page of this RFC.  Dodging questions asked of you in an RFC about yourself isn't going to win you any favors.  I'm not going to try to judge as to whether Nightscream needs help or not, as I don't have the time or inclination to do so.  However, I've lurked on a lot of the comics related pages, and while you do good work with some edits, you also seem to deliberately stir the pot with others.  Could you please focus on your behaviour that has been brought up at this RFC, and either defend it with evidence or specifially state what you have/are appologzing for?  Thank you,  T ainted C onformity   SCREAM 00:41, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Asgardian, you have once again stonewalled on quite reasonable questions, and employed the same non sequiturs and ad hominem arguments as a misdirection tactic.

The truth is, whether the behavior called into question by you has occurred in "recent months" is completely irrelevant, as is whether it is "outrageous", or whether I've had contact with you recently. You have exhibited this behavior for years, and those who call attention to it are under no time limit by which to do so, certainly not an arbitrary one imposed by you. This most recent evasion of direct questioning is certainly "recent", as you're doing it now. The idea that I have to have had recent contact with you in order for the evidence I and others have amassed her to have merit is a non sequitur. The two simply have nothing to do with one another. But if you can refute this by showing how this reasoning/evidence is false, then please do so.

The truth is, my mistakenly protecting the Red Hulk page bears absolutely no relevance to the fact that you continued to edit during a consensus discussion, and against the direction of the four other editors who participated, despite the fact that doing so was the reason for your last unreversed block. Your persistent bringing it up is simply an attempt at misdirection, and your statement that I continued to edit the disputed aspects of the article during while it was protected is false, as any look at its edit history will show. But if you can refute this by showing how this reasoning/evidence is false, then please do so.

The truth is, nothing I've said here is "inappropriate", nor does anything in my edits in the last month indicate otherwise, as I've done nothing more than assemble evidence of your behavior, and employed calm, reasoned, fair reasoning in forming conclusions from that evidence, and in responding to your rebuttals, without casting personal aspersions, or engaging in civility. Even if my six questions themselves were inappropriate, or exhibited some brand of dishonesty, inaccuracy, or manipulation of fact or reason, you could easily expose this by simply explaining how or why, thus hurting my credibility, since all ideas in matters of fact or reason are falsifiable. The truth is, you simply can't admit that these observations of your behavior, and my refutations of the deliberate fallacies and falsehoods you employ in response are unassailable, and that truthful, direct answers to these six questions would show that the truth is not on your side, so you resort to attacking me on a personal level, despite not being able to substantiate any of these innuendos or accusations of yours with cogent reasoning or evidence. If anything in my other recent edits allowed you identify a specific wrong behavior on my part, you could identify that behavior both here on this RfC, and in those "other edits". But the truth is, there is nothing you can point to, since this is another example of your implying that being involved in multiple edit disputes is itself evidence of impropriety. (This is not only false in itself, but an idea you apparently exempt yourself from, since you have entire block log filled with blocks stemming from far edit disputes in which you clearly were the guilty party.) But if you can refute this by showing how this reasoning/evidence is false, then please do so.

The truth is, the information I and others have amassed here is indeed based on measurable, objective facts. While it is true that interpersonal relationships, including interactions among Wikipedia editors in dispute, are predicated in part on perceptions that are subjective, reasonable truths can indeed by gleaned when more and more individuals from diverse backgrounds or sensibilities are assembled for participation. Here you have about 15 or so editors (this includes all those who submitted viewpoints on the draft page and the live page), most of whom are administrators with greater tenure and experience here than you. The fact that so many different people here converge upon the same conclusion about your behavior grants that conclusion a singular credence that one does not see too often on Wikipedia. Anyone with a sense of honesty about themselves would at least have the decency to consider that they might be right, and that he has a problem. That all you're capable of is this knee-jerk dismissal of "subjective" is further proof of the narcissism that seems to govern your WP:OWN-violating behavior. Nightscream (talk) 02:39, 1 February 2010 (UTC)


 * T ainted C onformity, while you may mean well, the view that I "deliberately stir the pot" is a rather limited. Have a close look at the evidence I presented on the Project Page. The length of the response (and the emotive tone) from Nightscream may also tell you something. Everyone else seems to have moved on, with no repercussions. The one editor who has been quite problematic also seems to have dropped from view, leaving no disputes. That is also telling. I really don't think anyone else wishes to continue with this, so let's move on. Regards Asgardian (talk) 02:55, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It should be noted that Asgardian above simultaneously states that if he wears people down enough to not have the energy to bother with him anymore then this is indicative of that there's no problem, and also that if someone manages to muster the energy, then it's all "emotive"/unreliable"/possible to discredit the user in question to avoid the actual issues. It's a win-win catch-all, which he is fully aware of, as it is very typical of how he and other advanced trolls tend to work and think.
 * Stirring up the pot and pushing buttons for what they call "experimental purposes" (but really only reenacting banal issues out of relentless and completely dishonourable petty sadism); first gauging the reactions to repeat word by word what he notices that others want to hear whenever he's in another jam; illustrating how we all move into predictable patterns when poked in a certain way; how almost any regulations and need to believe the best of everyone is two-sided per definition, and can easily be manipulated into a weapon for chaos and injustice; repeatedly threatens anyone observant enough to notice with bans for not categorically assuming good intentions when disproven hundreds of times in a row; working blatantly enough to give him an audience for his handiwork, but subtly enough to not reveal it from a cursory glance without extensive personal experience and some working knowledge of the information he distorts, while simultaneously stating that anyone with such experience is automatically untrustworthy in any available manner; using any rationalisations whatsoever no matter how contradictory to justify his actions, or even actual severe handicaps as a foundation for being "legally unfit to provide evidence" to evade various issues; or using pieces with extreme bias against each other to dirty his own hands as little as possible, while "illustrating" that "it's them, not me". It's what his type lives for, and the need to believe that they actually have good intentions only empowers them, which naturally is part of their ongoing satirical point. Wikipedia might as well have a big target sign for anyone with an Encyclopedia Dramatica mentality. Dave (talk) 17:18, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Which word or passage or set of passages shows an emotive tone? By all means, please provide one.

What indication is there that any of the other editors have "dropped from view" or have "moved on"? Nightscream (talk) 03:40, 1 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Soliciting other editors to comment after the fact also doesn't help. I think everyone's had enough. I've made my position clear. See here as well: . Let's just move on. There are umpteen articles out there still in need of attention. That's where our effort should be concentrated. Asgardian (talk) 04:14, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

There is no "after the fact". Editors are free to comment when they wish, as there has not been any time limit imposed upon this process. BOZ and I wish to give them one last opportunity to contribute before some resolution is made, but the current number of participants in this process is fairly impressive as it is, so I'm not sure what exactly it is you think will not be "helped" by the absence of those other three.

You are not qualified nor empowered to speak for "everyone", and have no way, therefore, to gauge whether they've "had enough", and this attempt by you to imply that the others here share your desire to make this process go away will not work. The diff you point to not only says nothing about this process being concluded (only that it provides a basis for a resolution--another example of your brazen insistence on distorting the words of others), and is by an outside editor not privy to your history, who by his own admission, merely read two articles you worked on, and none of the detailed summaries of your policy violations and questionable behavior written or endorsed by the 15 or so admins and other editors here. To hold up Scott's comment as the one that informs your position, while ignoring all the others, is silly. It remains that you're not going to evade consequences for your behavior by latching onto the one outsider who didn't even bother to look carefully into your behavior.

And you still haven't answered the question of what passages are "emotive". Would you care to answer this? Nightscream (talk) 05:22, 1 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Nightscream, I'm finding that your comment above: "You don't remove them against policy, find a source months later, and then say it 'resolves' the issue. It may resolve the the need for sources, but that does not mean that it resolves the issue of an editor violating policy months prior..."
 * is fairly telling.
 * First, anything that's well and truly resolved in the mainspace really is entirely resolved as far as building the encyclopedia is concerned (i.e., why we're all here, right?). Apologies and self-abasement and promises to do better and so forth about the imperfect process don't change either a jot or a tittle in the mainspace.
 * It seems to me that if you (and others) didn't have such a fraught history with Asgardian, then this incident really would have been "resolved" as soon as a source was produced. The fact that you want something more to be done, while acknowledging that there is nothing else to be done in the mainspace on that point, indicates to me the depth of the interpersonal dysfunction.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:33, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

What's resolved as far as building the encyclopedia has no bearing on the issue of violating policy. The two are separate issues, regardless of whether you are willing or capable of admitting this. This RfC, after all, isn't about sourcing, either in regards to a particular article, or as a general matter of policy fulfillment. It's about Asgardian's serial policy violations and abuse of the collaborative process, which is attested to by the volumes of evidence presented here by a good number of editors. To argue that the issue of Asgardian's habitual violations of policy are resolved simply because the issue of a needed third party source for some articles is resolved, is to conflate two separate issues, and shows that you suffer from the same tendency toward non sequitur as Asgardian. The production of that source means that those articles now have one that they needed. It does not, however, mean that therefore, ipso facto, removing a maintenance template from a page that requires it is suddenly "not wrong", or that his rationale for doing so was valid.

I have never said anything about or alluded to "abasement". As for apologies, while they do not help the article (and I never said they did, since again, this isn't about the article content issue), direct acknowledgment when others have formed a consensus contrary to your own viewpoint, or have decided that you have violated policy, whether to dispute or concede to the accusation, is a part of dispute resolution and good faith, and allows editors who have experienced a dispute at one point in time to work together in the future. Stonewalling on such issues, only to return to said behavior subsequently, and then offering insincere lip service to such things months later in order to avoid sanctions, as I and others have demonstrated with Asgardian, does not.

That you can dismiss all the evidence shown against Asgardian on the RfC page and this one further illustrates the problem of his enablers, who wish to pretend that he doesn't have a problem, and that somehow, it's not him who's at fault, but the 10-15 other long-tenured editors and admins who've generally operated for years in good faith. That you can completely miss the point of the above quote by me, and hold it up as evidence of some supposed problem on the part of someone other than Asgardian, while ignoring the dishonesty and manipulation that he himself exhibits on this very page, shows that you lack the ability to employ the reasoning necessary to form sensible judgments in matters such a this. "Interpersonal dysfunction", indeed. Nightscream (talk) 06:36, 1 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree completely with Nightscream in that Asgardian routinely blames his accusers and ,falsely claims that accusations against him are from "inexperienced editors" or "only one editor who has a problem with me". His disingenuousness and antagonism are bad enough &mdash; but his refusal to own up to his shortcomings in the face of so many other editors, including many longtime and experienced editors, who have serious and substantive issues with him goes too far. Step one in solving a problem is to admit you have a problem. A large number of editors are doing the equivalent of an intervention with Asgardian, and we're at a point where he needs to own up to his, let's say, imperfections. -- Tenebrae (talk) 13:47, 1 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I have addressed the RfC. Certain editors now need to stop making emotive assertions and over-dramatizing the situation. Some perspective is called for. Asgardian (talk) 00:58, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually, an RfC is open for further comment until it's (more or less) officially closed. As no one has moved to close it, the RfC currently remains open (it's still listed on the AN/I page index, for example). Either that, or it's automatically closed when everyone loses interest and stops posting to it for long enough. BOZ (talk) 01:10, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Wait, "Soliciting other editors to comment"? I really hope you're not referring to me Asgardian. The implication is rather insulting. I just happen to work at a job where one of the few sites we have access to is Wiki, so I tend to do more housekeeping and lurking then serious editing in the main space. FYI: I found my way here through AN/I. This is the only one I had any knowledge whatsoever on, so I commented. Nothing more, nothing less. - T ainted C onformity   SCREAM 04:59, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Nightscream,
 * You've massively misunderstood what I've said. I'm not attempting to defend Asgardian:  IMO some (not all) of his behaviors have been indefensible.  The fact that you can thoroughly misread my comment as supporting incorrect behavior, rather than as a plain comment on the depth of dysfunction that prompted your extensive "comments on the contributor, rather than content", is distressing.  If you can point me to a sentence or phrase that seems to say that I believe Asgardian's behavior is "not wrong", or desirable, or positive, then please provide the quotation.
 * Perhaps, however, a simpler version will improve your comprehension:
 * Nightscream complains above about solely the timing by which normal editing steps were performed, involving the removal of a tag (whose presence is not required by any policy, and whose removal, under reasonable circumstances, is part of the normal editing process) and the provision of a reliable source (which action is defined by me as "inherently good").
 * Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, and under normal circumstances, reasonable editors (e.g., Nightscream, until proven otherwise) would not complain about such trivialities (although they might revert unjustified/unreasonable template removals, just like they would revert unjustified/unreasonable template additions).
 * Therefore (I conclude) the problem must be much bigger than the example, and much more about relationships/emotions/behavior than about content in the mainspace.
 * There is an alternative conclusion -- that the problem really is as tiny and bureaucratic as someone pitching a fit over the number of days between two steps taken, and that editors are being patently unreasonable and complaining about a problem that cannot be solved except through time travel (so that Asgardian could magically provide the source before removing the tag) -- but (please pay attention) this is not what I conclude from what I've read. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:30, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah - you know, when I first read your original comments, I too thought that you were criticsing Nightscream but upon rereading, I see what you were getting at now. BOZ (talk) 05:44, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


 * T ainted C onformity : no, I wasn't referring to you. We're OK.

Regards Asgardian (talk) 06:23, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Asgardian: Please don't make vague accusations about "Certain editors." If you're going to accuse someone of something, as you do in your 00:58, 2 February 2010 comment above, then do the courtesy of saying who you mean so that the "certain editors" they can respond. It's completely improper to tar someone by implication; it lets the accuser say whatever he wants without giving the accused the chance to say whether your claim is accurate or simply scurrilous misdirection to deflect blame and avoid taking responsibility for your own behavior.


 * You don't want to answer questions. Fine. Maybe you'll change your mind at some point. If so, I'm sure we'd all like an answer to this: Why do you think, honestly, that so many longtime, experienced, veteran editors are all in general consensus about your behavior? Are we out to get you? Because unless you really, truly believe that, then why do you think we feel this way? -- Tenebrae (talk) 18:55, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

"Certain editors now need to stop making emotive assertions..." Again, if this is not simply a personal remark employed to evade said criticism, then why do you refuse to elaborate on this charge by pointing to which passage is "emotive"? Is there some reason you persistently make such accusations, without backing them up by illustrating them with examples and explanations (or in the case of the Scott Free post you cited, attributing meanings to them that they clearly do not exhibit)? The fact is, you know that direct answers to the six questions I've posed to you, without the indirectness, vagueness, fallacies or rhetoric that you typically employ when your behavior is scrutinized, would reveal them to be perfectly valid. The only reason you claim that "refusing to respond to this allegations is sensible" is because you know that you can't, and that these stock responses of "emotive", "subjective", "opinion", "personal grudge" and so forth, which only hold true if you change the meanings of those phrases, are poor attempts as misdirection. If the questions themselves were in some way not reasonable, you could expose this fact by explaining why. If Tenebrae's response is any indication Asgardian, these silly little barbs you're tossing at me are not convincing anyone, and your continued stonewalling will only make things worse for you when this is taking to the next step. Refusing to elaborate on your accusations when the person you've accused wishes to discuss those accusations with you hardly evokes an air of transparency or forthrightness.

Tainted Conformity, he was referring to my speaking with other editors who've participated in this RfC.

WhatamIdoing, your assessment of my responses here does not match what is actually in them. It appeared to me that you expressed an emphasis on the resolution of content disputes as having an equivalent effect on policy violations (they don't), and attributed ideas about "self-abasement" to me that I never expressed. (If I misunderstood, please clarify what you meant by "anything that's well and truly resolved in the mainspace really is entirely resolved as far as building the encyclopedia is concerned (i.e., why we're all here, right?). Apologies and self-abasement and promises to do better and so forth about the imperfect process don't change either a jot or a tittle in the mainspace.") And you continue to distort the nature of Asgardian's actions by selectively reframing them. Your comments about "timing", for example, are only made in hindsight, after sources were found for those articles, But Asgardian did not remove those tags because he intended to find them; he made it clear that there weren't any, and that rationale, I'm sorry, is not a legitimate part of the editing process. You remove tags if they're inappropriate/inaccurate, or if you've resolved the editing problem they sought to address. You don't remove them because you are resigned to the conclusion that the needed sources don't exist, since the policies that require them do not recognize this as a valid rationale. That Asgardian ended up finding said source months later was merely serendipitous. If he had said, "Okay, you're right, I shouldn't have jumped the gun with those tags, I won't do that any more," that would've been fine. But he didn't, which means this behavior may recur in the future, as may all the others he's displayed her, none of which you've commented on, or even indicated that you've read. It remains that your assessment of the issues with him being "tiny and bureaucratic" are clearly misinformed, and your remarks about those of us calling attention to them as "pitching a fit" are inaccurate and rhetorical.

But if I'm wrong, then just out of curiosity, how much of the RfC and this page have you read? Nightscream (talk) 19:07, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I've read all of it, actually. I don't think that you've read it all, though.  Specifically, you seem to have failed to pay attention to exactly the phrase that I asked you to please pay attention to.  (Search the page for "please pay attention".)  I do not conclude that this problem is tiny and bureaucratic; I specifically and expressly reject that conclusion, using words like "this is not what I conclude," which I'd hope would lead you to believe -- well, that "this is not what I conclude".
 * I also note that you are still clinging inappropriately to your mistaken belief that some policy somewhere requires editors to leave fact tags on uncited statements. There simply is no such policy.  It's good practice; it's appropriate; it's normal; it's reasonable -- but it is not required, by anything that you will find in Category:Wikipedia policies.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:02, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I apologize if I wasn't careful enough in reading your post. I'll try to make if point of being more circumspect.

As for whether there is a policy that would be pertinent to the issue of adding or removing maintenance tags alerting editors to an article's need for third party sources, I refer you to this one. Nightscream (talk) 22:21, 4 February 2010 (UTC)


 * An WP:ESSAY is not a POLICY. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:24, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

For everyone's reference, here's the page that deals with "citation needed" tags. I also want to note that per the policies Verifiability and No original research, the burden of proof is on the editor who wants to keep the uncited material. If material is unverified, it should be cited or removed. If an article is tagged as needing sources (be they third party, out-of-universe, or any sources at all), saying there is no problem and removing tags without resolving the source issues essentially flies in the face of these policies. WesleyDodds (talk) 07:39, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't have any particular doubt that the specific example showed an undesirable problem.
 * However, the policies don't require editors to leave a fact-tag on a sentence, or to remove it only if they are adding a citation, because sometimes the fact-tag shouldn't have ever been placed there, because sometimes there really is no problem. For example, I've seen fact-tags added immediately after existing inline citations, and to properly written WP:LEADs that accurately summarize extensively referenced sections of articles, and in the middle of a paragraph that is tagged start and end with the same ref and that clearly covers a single fact (just a fact that requires more than one sentence to describe).  There is no actual policy requirement to leave fact-tags in articles:  Vandalism, accidents, poor reading skills, and the myth of "at least one citation per grammatical unit" are part of Wikipedia's reality.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:06, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

And do those types of situations apply to the ones in question here involving Asgardian? Nightscream (talk) 01:22, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * They apply quite directly to the completely false assertion of a policy requirement that has been demonstrated not to exist. Policies should not be misrepresented, ever, even if the misrepresentation is not germane to the specific application.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:31, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Such tags are a natural part of policies, guidelines or consensus developed by the community, such as WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:RS, WP:CS, etc. Nightscream (talk) 07:32, 14 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Perhaps my understanding of this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed is flawed. But it seems to indicate two real options for when a cite needed tag is in place... add a reference, or delete the content. It does not mention deleting the cite needed tag. And perhaps this third section "Controversial, poorly sourced claims in biographies of living persons should be deleted immediately." also applies? That "perhaps" based off the "in-universe, hey it's real!" handling of fictitious characters in comics?


 * Regardless, (and on to another topic) there seem to be a bunch of reverts that have been made for disagreement over information posted (disagreeing based on "I dont remember that", "I think you're probably wrong", "you didnt cite that - even though I dont always or remove cite needed tags instead of citing things" and so on). I've followed that on Thor as a for instance, and have added a ref or two for the contributor who had posted the (accurate) info that kept getting removed. In other cases (Thor, related pages), without discussion, sections (or chunks of content) have been removed because Asgardian has deemed they shouldn't be on the page - with no noticeable discussion on the Talk page.


 * Though I AM a relatively inexperienced editor (and spend most of my time reverting vandalism until I feel comfortable enough with real contributions), when I entirely revert or even reword someone else's well meaning contribution, I always try to make sure I have posted something to the Talk page of whatever article or to the user's talk page. I may not be perfect at remembering each time, but I try.


 * Yet, this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Thor_%28Marvel_Comics%29 shows no such trend in over a year until this RFC started... while this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Thor_(Marvel_Comics)&action=history shows continuous reverts and changes (by Asgardian) to the Thor page that did not result in an explanation on the Talk page.


 * Though I am loathe to speak for anyone else, I for one don't bother editing the Thor article anymore, yet I have owned all but 13 issues of every single Thor comic since Day One to present. Sadly, it's one of the few articles that I'd (currently) feel comfortable working on, but dont want to waste my time having my work reverted without discussion as I have found to be the trend in the page's history and Talk Page's corresponding (lack of) discussion. So, the fear I am loathe to expand on, is I suspect that other editors who can bring useful, helpful contributions to that (and other) article(s) will simply choose not to.


 * On the other side of the same coin, his efforts and contributions (when not considering the above issues) are wonderful and shows true dedication. Not seeming like he WP-OWN's the articles though would be a major step in my mind. Apparently, that road has been travelled before numerous times, for which I was not involved with - so, not knowing what efforts (from direct involvement) have been made to alleviate this issue, I will choose not to weigh in on the merit of "trying one more time"


 * Best,
 * Robert
 * RobertMfromLI | User Talk STP2: Producer/Gaffer/Webmaster 04:40, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Arbitration Request to have Asgardian Banned from Wikipedia
I have opened up a request to have Asgardian banned from the site. In addition to Asgardian, I have named BOZ and Tenebrae as parties, since BOZ spearheaded this RfC, and Tenebrae seconded my observations of the Talk Page of Asgardian's WP:GAME behavior. There are spaces provided for them to comment, but others may do so as well.

The area in question is designated to show the Arbitrators that there is a dispute requiring their intervention. It is not for trying to prove our case at this time. If the case is accepted for Arbitration, an evidence page will be created that can be used to provide more detail. I have already written what I believe will be my case if and when the case is opened. I would imagine, therefore, that anyone wishing to comment in the case request area should do so succinctly, to indicate whether they endorse it or disagree with it. Nightscream (talk) 22:31, 13 February 2010 (UTC)