Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Nightscream

Netoholic's comments

 * Before I state anything else, I would like to thank Netoholic for taking his time to evaluate this problem and offer suggestions that might bring it to a pleasant and constructive closure. No one has sincerely negatively evaluated him in anyway. Sometimes differences of opinion can lead people to say things they don't mean. As adults, we have to rise above that and look at how the people we are interacting with behave most of the time, instead of focusing on the one incident where they made an error. So far I strongly disagree with Netoholic on many points and feel that many of his ideas about this discussion are not entirely sound or consistant with the context, though so far his suggestions have all been quite rational. Its just that, for the most part, they are suggestions which myself and others already thoroughly exhausted in this matter before he ever voiced any opinion in this discussion. ScifiterX 03:13, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

'''So, let me get this straight. Nightscream wants to add more information to our encyclopedia, and there are other editors that don't want that information. Since noone seems to be disputing the factual basis for the information, that doesn't seem to be a problem. Some have contested the NPOV status of the additions, but I don't really see a problem and even if I did that can be fixed with editing, not blanket removal.'''

'''I suggest the initiators of this RFC re-evaluate whether they have been accommodating during this. There are plenty of solutions than simple reversion. One could edit the Nightscream's section down a bit. One could even reduce it to a summary and split it off into its own article. I for one find information about the super powers far more interesting than boring storyline information.

'''So, ALL of you stop edit warring, and find some balanced way of presenting this information. -- Netoholic @ 14:15, 18 July 2005 (UTC)'''
 * I am compelled to respond to this. No. That is not it at all. No he is not trying to add good objective information to the encyclopedia. He is trying to add bad information (NPOV, biased, opinion, conjecture, etc). He is trying to add the most nebulous kind of fan cruft. And people have been disputing his facts. If you look on the discussion page you can see where I specifically took apart his edit and did exactly that. Believe what you will but you are wrong. We tried to find something valid in his edit and were not able to find anything. There was a very good reason that he was blocked. His accusation that it was unfair and that he had no idea the discussion was even taking place or where it was taking place shows you just how honest and reasonable Nightscream is. Look a little closer at the dialogue. ScifiterX 22:16, 20 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I also do not appreciate your contention that a group of people advocating thier side of an argument in a discussion is the same as edit warring. We did not knowingly break the 3 revert rule. Nighscream did. We did not ignore the discussion that was going on or pretend we didn't know about it. Nightscream did. He is the one who has been breaking the rules and sticking his nose up at both the democratic process inherent in this site and those who abide by it such as yourself. ScifiterX 22:24, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. Unfortunately, had you read Talk:Wolverine (comics), or even this page, you would have realised that the other editors on the page have edited Nightscream's section down a bit, accomodating every piece of notable information. We already have a balanced way of presenting the information. I suggest Netaholic familiarise himself more intimately with the matter at hand. The matter at hand is how to get to Nightscream to reach a consensual position rather than blanketly refusing to discuss the issue and simply inserting his own version onto the page. Hiding talk 17:07, July 18, 2005 (UTC)


 * I'll try not to be insulting by the insinuation that I haven't read the relavent pages or that I need to familiarise myself more with the dispute. I would not have commented had I not looked at it closely.
 * Nightscream has not been welcomed to the article. His lengthy information has in some ways been incorporated, but the fact that practically every edit of his from the start was reverted out-of-hand, is frankly insulting.  Rather than being a collaborative environment, it is one of exclusion.  You (collectively) revert out his changes, and then place back what you see fit?  How can he possibly feel he is part of the collaboration?
 * Next time you get into this situation, leave the added material in. If reducing it makes sense, do so in small increments and use lots of Talk page communication. Show that you appreciate his additions and welcome more.  -- Netoholic @ 17:30, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Nightscream wasn't welcomed? That doesn't even make sense. We tried to use the talk page with him he just ignored us for the most part or stuck his nose up. Again he was the one that wore out his welcome (which he was definately given) by breaking the 3 rule revert rule and generally being rude.
 * Leave the added material in? Regardless of its accuracy, quality, authenticity, or context? Well, whether or not that should be done kind of speaks for itself. If someone wants to contribute to an article they have to accept the fact that what they write may not be considered acceptable to the rest of the community. And if someone adds information that is clearly not acceptable there is nothing wrong with removing it. ScifiterX 01:51, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
 * The current version incorporated his material from it's start. I wrote it as a compromise with Nightscream and a couple of other users months back, and he was the only one not to accept the compromise.


 * And I dispute the accuracy on the basis that it is not possible to be as precise as he desires. It's like averaging a set of results with five significant figures and arriving at a result with ten figures. There may be "additional information" in claiming the additional figures, but it's meaningless. - SoM 17:34, 18 July 2005 (UTC)


 * You did as good a job at not being insulted as I did by the line One could edit the Nightscream's section down a bit. when that is exactly what has been done. But this isn't about my wounded pride, nor yours.  As to your comment about it being one of expulsion rather than compromise, how can it be aything other than that, if Nightscream refuses to engage.  Are we simply supposed to allow Nightscream's edit to remain, sacrosant and untouched?  What precedent is that to set?  How far in line with Wikpedia policy is that?  As to how welcoming people have been, since this has been going on since before March, how welcoming are we supposed to remain? Hiding  talk 18:10, July 18, 2005 (UTC)


 * Completely reverting his changes, and then adding/changing only those things you wish to see is not a welcoming atmosphere. As I said, you should leave his entire, bloated entry, and then edit it down little by little, encouraging him to participate.  -- Netoholic @ 18:23, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Hmmm. You could be right there. Thanks. Hiding  talk 08:46, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't agree that we should leave his entire bloated entry. You suggest editing it down little by little and hoping that will be all right with him. What did he do to deserve that kind of power? We have welcomed him into this and we have tried to use his contributions. I really looked for something we could keep from his version of the edit and I, and others, simply found that it was innapropriate. And in some places, such as other areas on the Wolverine (comics) entry his contributions were clearly used. ScifiterX 01:58, 21 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I also note that the only "external" response to the article RFC so far @ Talk:Wolverine_%28comics%29, who reminded me of a point I mentioned on the Talk page itself and should have included as part of my last point here, which is that this is not exclusively about the Marvel Universe Wolverine, but also needs to be valid for four other continuities. - SoM 18:16, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

I pared down my edit to get rid of words like "opinion" that ScifiterX didnt' like, and reduced the detail overall, leaving only the elaboration on the strength of his healing factor, and the times it's been challenged (which are signfiicant points, given that it's his main signature power), details on his senses, his bones, etc. ScifiterX complained his bones were "laced", not "coated" with adamantium, and I changed it yet again. His comments about the hair and the particle beam are based on his taste, and saw no reason to delete them. SoM's terse "Just no" when reverting it back certainly evokes an atmosphere of exclusion, as these few seem to want to decide the content based on their sense of taste. I don't like the costume section, since it's not a signature trait, but rather than delete it, I just accept it as someone's addition. Why can't you do the same? The idea that I do not engage in discussion is clearly false, as our Talk pages show that whenI try do engage, ScifiterX and others respond with insults, false accusations and lies, calling me "pretentious," accusing me of being willfully antagonistic (without explaining how he knows my intent), calling my work "vandalism" (when it's really a content dispute, and any look through my contributions shows that I don't vandalize), claiming he doesn't insult me, but accuses me of doing so to him (offering as the only example a post in which I pointed out the fallacies he was employing--as if that's an insult), and refusing to respond directly when I refute his arguments. He talks about rolling on the floor with laughter because I use words that he needs a dictionary to understand. Is this the level of "engagement" being prescribed here? It's claimed that the three or so reverters constitute a "consensus," and ScifiterX acts as if the fact that I do not have others "backing me up" is some type of valid point, but when someone--Netoholic--chooses to agree even partially with me, he is derided by Hiding as a "pillock" (though Hiding thankfully apologized for that.) My latest edit is fine the way it is, and adds a nice amount of detail on his powers that some readers might want or need in their research. Nightscream 7.20.05. 4:29am EST
 * I apologise once again for using the term Pillock, and would like to withdraw my signature on this RFC and back Netaholic's view if such a thing is allowed. Hiding talk 08:46, July 20, 2005 (UTC)


 * Okay, first off Nightscream is implicitly insulting and condescending and the fact that Hiding, at some point, accidentally slipped and called him a naughty name only makes Hiding human. Nightscream deliberately tries to antagonize people into saying something nasty in order to use it against them. He tried it with me. Not only is he rude but he straight out puts words in your mouth and accuses you of doing and saying things you haven't. Its really frustrating dealing with him. And he is not averse to calling people idiots either, he just makes sure to do it without signing in.ScifiterX 02:13, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

"He talks about rolling on the floor with laughter because I use words that he needs a dictionary to understand." Here is an example of Nightscream's typical juvenile antics. That was not my statement to begin with. What I said was that when I read his statement "Rhetoric and argument by fiat is veridically invalid" to my friends, they thought it was funny and laughed, not because they didn't know what he meant, but because of how silly it sounded. He was throwing as many 10 dollar words into a simple sentence to describe something as mundane as his difference of opinion with me over a superhero. In other words, desperately trying to seem intelligent. And no I was not laughing at him or being cruel. My friends weren't even familiar with the argument. But here he takes the time to attempt to insult me by taking something I have said out of context and distorting it. The first time he slips and does it with you, Netoholic, you'll understand. I have no idea why anyone would be taking his side.ScifiterX 02:13, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Okay, Netaholic, I see now. It wasn't Nightscream someone called a pillock. Okay, I believe I can speak for all parties involved in this when I say that no one has evaluated your intelligence negatively. Someone just got frustrated and said the wrong thing at the wrong time. As far as I can discern, everyone involved in this is grateful to you for your time and attention on this matter even if we may strongly disagree with you. I have seen many of your contributions and can honestly say that you are a very intelligent, logical, and articulate person. I would probably be aggravated and biased against a certain camp in here if someone brought such a statement to my attention, and I were in your position. None-the-less, please try not to let that color your judgement.ScifiterX 03:01, 21 July 2005 (UTC)