User talk:J Greb/Archive Sep 2009

Franchise infobox advice

There are various articles on comics based on franchises (A Nightmare on Elm Street (comics), The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (comics), etc.) and I was wondering about what infobox to use - would a metaseries infobox work here? (Emperor (talk) 15:27, 4 September 2009 (UTC))

The Army of Darkness (comics) seems to work with the meta, so the other should as well. - J Greb (talk) 16:48, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Ah I missed your update on that (I just bunged it in as a placeholder) and yes that works well. I'll roll it out on a few articles and see what you think. (23:30, 4 September 2009 (UTC))

Just getting back

Hey, J! Sorry for not responding sooner; as you probably surmised from my contribution history, I've been away for several months. I plan to return to Wiki-editing regularly (if not often), and it's good to see some of my old and treasured colleagues still here fighting the good fight. With kudos and regards, --Tenebrae (talk) 00:34, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Origin of Superman

I was hoping you could be an extra set of eyes for the article. There is some dispute regarding image content for the alternate universes and other media. -Sharp962 (talk) 19:54, 7 September 2009 (UTC).

Nutshell?

Start a section on the talk page and point out exactly why the images you think should go should go.

Give that discussion some time and encourage CmdrClow to comment.

And you've just run into one of the issues mentioned and the project talk page about image removal.

- J Greb (talk) 20:29, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! -Sharp962 (talk) 16:08, 8 September 2009 (UTC).

Discussion in which your participation is requested

Hi. I know this was discussed this past February, but after we had an edit dispute on Red Hulk, Asgardian and Peregrine Fisher requested that we have another one, so I'm going to try and contact as many people as I can to hopefully settle this issue. Can you participate in the discussion here? Thank you very much. It is most appreciated. Nightscream (talk) 05:57, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Nomad (comics)

What do you think about splitting out what is basically an article within an article (the Jack Monroe sections) and pitching this as more of a setindex?

Rikki Barnes is clearly destined for a large role (they have their own limited series starting this month) and will presumably get their own article in time.

I've also left a note on the talk page tos ee what people think. (Emperor (talk) 21:03, 9 September 2009 (UTC))

OTTOMH...

1. Move the current article to Jack Monroe...
2. Split Rogers, Farbel, and Rikki back to Nomad (comics) as an SI...
3. Include a lead-like section for Monroe...
4. Structure a section of that for the comic book titles...
5. Bang head against wall as this points up a Bucky (set index) may be needed since, IIRC, Marvel has had 4 or 5 characters use the name.
6. Also over images... Cap 180 could stay just withe the Cap article and Nomad v? 1 with Monroe, but the SI should have a different shot of the purple spandex since it is common from Rogers through 1/2-ish of Monroe. It would also need an image of Rikki as Nomad.

- J Greb (talk) 21:13, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

OK I'll get on that tomorrow. On Bucky (set index), a quick search reveals there have been 7 but we'd need to check that list to make sure they all count. It makes sense as it may be the original Bucky may need renaming at some point depending on how long he stays around (as Captain or something else) and this can then be moved into the top slot. (Emperor (talk) 09:14, 12 September 2009 (UTC))

Reply concenring Batman Changes

I have been collecting comics for over 20 years and for the first time I though I would take an active part on adding something to the concept of Wikipedia. But then someone such as yourself, and another editor who have become the self-proclaimed authorities of this entry diregard other peoples contributions becuase you don't feel that it appropriate, in your opinion.

So my reaction after several attempts to contribute constructively were undone, so I found that it took disruption and childish antics to even get a statement from the people who kept reverting to prior versions.

If you truly paid attention to the talk you will find that your are in the minority in the opinion of what is relevant and what isn't.

Yes you could have me blocked, but I could also request have you blocked for continually censoring the free speech and opinions of others. Or like other pages get all updates locked out because of our disagreement, such is done with political or hot button topic pages. But that would solve nothing and hurt others.

Why not just allow the recognition of the current status of Batman, as Dick Grayson, to stand and then allow a reversion to occur once it changes. Nobody has shown that this would be harmful in any way. In fact, it might help to get people who might casually know Batman to take a more active interest to loearn what happened, or spark other to start to readin more about him. Where is the downside?

Look how they recognized everyone who was teh flash. Why not dot the same here? It would satify everyone. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flash_(comics) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.12.140.195 (talk) 02:30, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

~P.O

Weirdness

There's something very peculiar about what this new user is doing. They seem to be reverting a bunch of changes with no apparaent rationale, for one thing. What do you make of it? BOZ (talk) 04:41, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

hrm... lets see...

• Hulk it was back 4 edits to [1] by David A, but only removes a later edit by David A (odd...)
• High Evolutionary back 4 edits to [2] by Rtkat3, removing only edits by David A
• Thor back 6 edits to [3] by Asgardian, removing edits by a pair of IPs, Asgardian, and David A
• Thunderball back 4 edits to [4] by 24.72.211.133, again removing only edits by David A
• Enchantress back 9 edits to [5] by Nikofeelan, covering edits by David A, Nikofeelan, and an IP
• Piledrive back 3 edits to [6] by 204.153.84.10, undoing SmackBot and David A
• Bulldozer back 2 edits to [7] by SmackBot, over just David A
• Wrecker back 5 edits to [8] by SimbasGuard, which Asgardian also liked on the 5th, but it overrids a later edit by Asgardian and an IP
• Celestial back 11 edits to [9] by Asgardian, and over riding edits by David A, HalfShadow, and a bot
• Seth back 5 edits to [10] by 86.147.183.82, undoing David A and an IP
• Nate Grey back 6 edits to [11] by 144.183.224.2, wiping work by David A and Cameron Scott
• Odin back 10 edits to [12] by 76.245.46.136, striking edits by David A, Rtkat3, Clarityfiend, TriiipleThreat, and 2 IPs
• Moondragon back 63 edits (!!) to [13] by Gregmce, which undoes a lot of edits made by David A and a handful from a handful of others.
• Gladiatopr (Kallark) back 3 edits to [14] by Asgardian, undoing David A and Grafen

My initial thoughs? The removals on each include edits by David A. And all the removal seem to harm the articles. I'd go with revert/restore and warn. - J Greb (talk) 06:45, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Almost all of the reverts are done in the exact same style and bias of interest as Asgardian tends to use for censoring any information that he doesn't like, accurate or not, and he does have that old confirmed sock that sets my paranoia blinkers going whenever some temporary ip or user has started to enforce his edits. I added it to his suspected sockpuppets page, although the only other ip I bothered to list there that I think may have been him at this point is 165.69.252.7 (Doppelganger3.1 was probably JJonz for example, and 203.46.189.91 was added by someone else), and it could just as well be JJonz (Or someone impersonating him, since it's a safe cover to be a nuisance to me. It's probably not too hard to mimic) a go again. Dave (talk) 11:59, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I think a JJonz sock is more likely - although wouldn't he have started vandalizing your talk page by now or something? BOZ (talk) 12:26, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Warning delivered. Asgardian also thinks this is a sockpuppet. BOZ (talk) 12:41, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I dunno. Not always. JJonz seems active with the usual style of edits without going vandal on me again.

Asgardian's stated suspicion is pretty irrelevant and doesn't fit the pattern. Why would it mostly enforce Asgardian's theme of edits, and without any reason revert between them. (In fact doing exactly the same thing)

In my experience, Asgardian is pretty good at manipulation, including misdirection. (For example the standard "Write false and very contradicting editing justifications, while being extremely selective in what references that are censored, and claim "civility issues" if anyone points it out". The way I read it, Asgardian admits to doing the former here with the "As for J Greb 's concern, I've made a request to be directed to the relevant rule on Wikipedia." comment (/"I'll use any underhanded tactic that I'll get away with"?), and User:Nightscream has also noticed the latter tendency here.) The only relevance I tend to look at is the nature and context of the edits... Gah, I really hate all of this "Who's conspiring against who? Impossible to distinguish people from each other" Internet crap.

(Speaking of which, another thing I did notice was the second time I've seen the "Tag: references removed" editing summary insert, (previously seen here), which undid one of Asgardian's irrational cut-outs in the favour of one of my own. Was that Asgardian pretending to be a sock created by me, even though I never consciously use them (unless accidentally logged out, and then I've told that it was me in the following edit), and my ip tends to start with 255, or someone else playing an overall game that doesn't lead anywhere, or just a fluke? It would be much easier to not have to deal with any of this paranoid jumble that this place easily turns into.) Dave (talk) 14:30, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Without a clear "pet fave" across the article, or even a majority of them, it's counter productive to point fingers at active editors. I also find it hard to credit an editor removing their own edits. The only consistant thing seems to be someone torked at you specifically Dave, either from on Wiki or IRL. - J Greb (talk) 17:11, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. I don't think the conclusions reached are unreasonable (especially when you look at what is being removed - other versions, trimming down of other media, etc.) but blaming someone without proper evidence [15], [16], [17]. As the edits are disruptive, seem to be targetting a specific editor and has that old sock smell about it I think a good case can be made at WP:CHECKUSER - I'd recommend this as the next course of action, you already have most of the evidence assembled. (Emperor (talk) 20:54, 9 September 2009 (UTC))

I don't trust Checkuser too much, since it would be easy for pretty much anyone to switch ips, either through moving between computers, routers, or possibly even hacking if they're ambitious, but I suppose that it could be worth a shot. What should I say and what more evidence/conclusions(/rampant paranoia?) would I need?

(I do remember various temporary ips that reverted to his edits in the whole "rampant Galactus/cosmic Marvel bias selective reference censoring and distortion" mess long ago (which I eventually lost energy for, as logic and references didn't seem to matter), at a time when he would want to distance himself due to being banned from edit-warring and getting warned a lot, but when I checked I couldn't seem to find them/sift through the mess and remember when exactly this was. I think it was the beginning of this year (February?), but maybe not. I'll have to check again I suppose.) Dave (talk) 14:16, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I think the difs provided by J Greb should be enough, just make sure you are clear that:

• A new user turns up and starts reverting articles almost all of which mean removing your edits - suggesting an existing user with an axe to grind.
• Being mainly Marvel articles that show a pattern of edit disputes and the versions suggest it could be one of two editors, one of whom has used sockpuppets in the past.

It makes it definitely worth their while checking, whether it turns up something useful or not remains to be seen. (Emperor (talk) 08:57, 12 September 2009 (UTC))

Actually, bothof them are proven to have used sockpuppets in the past. JJonz is simply far more flamboyant about it/mostly does so because he thinks he's funny, whereas my (Actually bigger, given that he actually gets an impact through a more subtle version of the same methods, and is less honest about it, which in combination with organising any available extremely biased editors favouring a certain characters at all costs, has erased most of my energy to be somewhat useful around here) problem with Asgardian is that he generally systematically specifically censors any accurate references that he doesn't like (In this case, that the creator of both characters, Stan Lee wrote Galactus and Mephisto as stalemated equals in 1990, well after both had been long established, since Asgardian deletes any of the multiple references that has various characters explicitly shown as equal or far superior to Galactus power, and I like to use the best extent of power gauges that I know about) with false/contradictory justifications (On the other hand I'm torn about him, as he is pretty good at structuring page information, whereas I'm definitely not. He simply doesn't care much about deleting accurate references and inserting multiple inaccuracies that satisfy a personal bias while doing so, and apparently regularly uses manipulation to handle anything at Wikipedia), but I also remember a (third?) temporary vandal at the Hulk forum who apparently searched me out due to being pissed off about my old story. Dave (talk) 18:59, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Small update

Just to let all know, an SPI w/ checkuser has been submitted on the 3 new editors: Repacator4.7, Onceundone, and Adiva Dboy.

The last has already been blocked as a VOA.

- J Greb (talk) 19:07, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

If I understand correctly it seems like it has now been confirmed that User:Onceundone was a JJonz sock, and that Asgardian was innocent in this particular case, so apologies about that one. Of course, I still have a few hundred repeteitive and extremely energy-eroding bad experiences with his general tactics, so it's not like it changes my general viewpoint. Dave (talk) 17:45, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

That's a start Dave. But it may be in your best interests to wait before leveling an accusation either in an edit summary or by placing the "suspected sock" tag on a user page. And looking at your history with the two editors, it looks like JJonz played your knee jerk reaction to Asgardian, note the name of one of the additional socks that was flushed out. - J Greb (talk) 22:15, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Noted

Yes, I saw that, and was going to advise someone rather than dispute it myself. Given what has happened of late, I think that this is the best course of action with fellow editors who become a tad emotional. Thanks. Asgardian (talk) 02:46, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Marvel: Ultimate Alliance 2 voice credits

We've finally got official credits from the game.

Voice credits start at 5:12

Unfortunately, they don't tie names to characters like MUA1 did, but considering that all the names which appeared on the Twitter entries are in the credits, and we know the person making the entries is a reliable source for information (though the validity of the entries themselves as sources is debatable), I've no reason to believe that they're false. So where do we go from here? -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 01:03, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I really wish it had been "actor - character(s)", it would have made it much easier.

Right now, I'd still treat the Tweets as a no-go and fall back on things like the Newsarama story, the actors official web sites, and IGN (I'd be surprised if they don't trot out an article with the correlation list). At least for the character articles. Though... the returning character/actor pairs may be OK based on the UA1 cast list. - J Greb (talk) 01:29, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I'll try to find other sources, but honestly, I think the tweets are reliable this time. I don't claim to be an expert on Wikipedia's policies...far from it actually...but I do strive to make sure that anything I post is accurate, even if some details are harder to source than others. However, when these tweets come from someone who we know is intimately and directly involved in the subject matter, have proven a reliable source of information before, and contain information which includes or reflects details found in either the primary source or other reliable secondary sources, I'd say that helps to establish its legitimacy.

Still, this whole thing is seriously confusing...perhaps we should seek the opinion of a neutral third-party? -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 01:52, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Whoops

Sorry about all that. It was C&Ped and I didn't realise. Thanks for editing it. _Met^ty 16:29, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Second look ...

Hoping you could look over Lance (comics). I merged Lance and Magog (comics) after posting notices on the notice board and each page and having no contention for two months. A user seems to be reverting the redirect of Lance (comics) without providing rationale, and another editor involved would be appreciated. Thanks for your time. -Sharp962 (talk) 19:02, 20 September 2009 (UTC).

Thanks for the follow-up, much appreciated. -Sharp962 (talk) 00:08, 21 September 2009 (UTC).

Spoiler/Batgirl

Whoops, sorry about that revert. When I reverted, it was displaying a shot of Steph as Batgirl, not the old Spoiler image. Dunno what happened there; it's showing Spoiler again now. rdfox 76 (talk) 03:36, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not saying I told you so...

But... It was all POINTy. At least, that's the explanation now. Can we please remember this for the next one? ThuranX (talk) 05:32, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Looking for input

(note I dropped on others...)

'lo guys,

I'm cross posting this to BOZ, Doczilla, Emperor, Hiding, and Jc37 because I'd like some additional admin-level input on something that ThuranX dropped on my talk page.

What he posted is at User talk:J Greb#I'm not saying I told you so... and it deals with information that' come up at Talk:Red Hulk#Dates while describing the plot. ThuranX's post provides a direct link to the touch off edit/confession.

Frankly, I find the information more than a little frustrating. But before moving forward I would like some input from other admins that have had to deal with these two. Admins other' than the one (Nightscream) currently involved in the edit war on Red Hulk.

Just try and keep this in one place I've set up a subhead under ThuranX's post to mey talk.

Thanks in advance for any input you have to offer.

- J Greb (talk) 15:26, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

That admission hit me as well, so much so that I replied there before reading down and seeing Thuran X had a similar reaction to me. I also had to take some time out to count to ten (technically i is probably 10,000 by now but I got distracted) before putting forward ideas about what to do now. As I've said a number of times I favour mentioning dates and issue numbers in the flow of the text, within reason, as it satisfies WP:WAF. I have also expressed by opinion that Asgardian's conversion of some articles (Abomination (comics) and Rhino (comics) spring to mind) were unreadable eyesores (articles that essential are just lists in long form that serve no purpose and could be deleted for all the use they now are) I just wasn't sure why (as other editors have reworked articles to eliminate an excess of plot and merge FCBs into PHs) and suggested problems with Asgardian (either his fixed idea of what the guidelines mean and assumptions of consensus that doesn't actually exist or just incompetent editing) or the simple fat that you may not be able to do this with C and Z-list characters. Now it turns out he did this (and pretty much forced his versions through with bloody-mindedness) to prove a point that including the mention of comic series and dates in the text would be an eyesore. This is pretty appalling behaviour, basically degrading articles to the point where deletion could have been an option. Not just that but it has been done in the face of opposition and wasted a lot of good editors time (and it looks like it is going to waste more as these need to be rewritten from the ground up).

Personally, I feel this is the last straw (and it isn't like we haven't spent years giving him chance after chance) and would support any move to block him for good. (Emperor (talk) 15:50, 2 September 2009 (UTC))

I'm not sure I'm following completely, as I haven't been keeping up with the Rulk discussion. Is it correct to assume that what has been going on, is that Asgardian deliberately cut all the descriptive text out of Abomination and other articles to prove a point of how ugly this approach is, when myself and others were telling him "We get it, it's ugly, please stop"? If this is the case, are we prepared to block or take him to arbcom or something? Keeping in mind, of course, that this is hardly the first thing other editors have come into contention with him over. BOZ (talk) 16:58, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

That seems to be what happened with the abomination article. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 17:07, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't know about the Abom article, but can those of you here make clear on the Red Hulk article that you believe that there is indeed a consensus with regard to dates, in response to Asgardian's assertion that there is not one? (Or do you still want further discussion on that point, Peregrine?) If you do this, and he continues to revert, it would be perfectly reasonable to block him, and for longer than his last unreversed block. Nightscream (talk) 17:09, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I want to see what others say first. I don't want any more edit warring. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 17:11, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

(ec)

By his post, Abomination was just that - a pointed, destructive edit. And as Emperor points out, it wasn't the only one Asgardian was doing it to.

My initial reaction was that this shoots and good will he's earned since the last Arbcom case. It also makes good faith assumption next to impossible. And that his actions deserve a long block. The first two still hold. The last though... that's why I asked for additional input. Level heads to make a reasonable decision. - J Greb (talk) 17:15, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Wow... can we all get a link to the ArbCom mentioned? Perhaps there's a provision in that that provides recourse? Also, Is it right to discuss this back here? there's an entire AN/I thread on a closely related matter, or we can open a new one for this, but everyone aware now has had issue swith Asgardian, and it would be better to air this out in bright sunlight (it being a great disinfectant) and let the community see this plainly? ThuranX (talk) 21:02, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Sure, I think JGreb was just seeing what everyone thought as we've been around this soooo often it is best to thrash it out before taking it further.

One problem is that this has gone on for so long is there an easy way to summarise this for those who haven't been following this for a while? Possibly, but I'm not volunteering. ;)

Anyway I suspect a poke around the comics Project talk page might bring up gold as there must be a few times someone has had to summarise this. My contribution: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics/Request for comment/Asgardian (June 2007) and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Asgardian-Tenebrae (Nov-Dec 2007) - this last one should provide a reasonable summary of the problems and subsequent action taken. Someone might want to fish through his talk page but a recent example is this including [18] and [19] and more recently [20], [21], [22], [23]. (Emperor (talk) 21:49, 2 September 2009 (UTC))

This dif might be especially relevant. Mangojuice offered to look things over from an independent point of view and basically said he should really consider changing his ways (back in February). I see no evidence of that having happened. (Emperor (talk) 21:56, 2 September 2009 (UTC))

Finally, so we can keep everything together: Asgardian's block log (Emperor (talk) 22:05, 2 September 2009 (UTC))

Yeah, Mangojuice has even opined that it hasn't been shown that Asgardian has misbehaved at all, and has requested that I lose my admin privileges for protecting the article. I even linked him to the Red Hulk discusison, and this page's discussion, and that didn't do it. Nightscream (talk) 22:07, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

At this time, I don't see any grounds under which to make an indef block for Asgardian (unless I'm missing something); that ArbCom ruling and its restrictions expired last year. However, at the same time, it establishes a history, plus everything we have all been through regarding him, that I think now would perhaps be a good time for another ArbCom case. We could put him on long-term block, but he has created socks before and used his IP to make block-evading edits. I think the thing to do would be to seek placement a restriction on him requiring mentorship by at least one other editor in good standing, with a strict set of enforcements for blocks as needed. Obviously, since he is not listening to others, and does not work well with others, this may be the only method under which he will do so. BOZ (talk) 22:26, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'm both surprised and disappointed to see how quickly some of you, who have had no contact with me for some time, jump on the backwagon. I'll defuse this right now and provide this link, which shows exactly what I meant when addressing ThuranX: [24]. The dates contradict his claim, which is an assumption (which some of you have unfortunately chosen to act on). See also my comments at [25], where there is also evidence of uncivil behaviour from ThuranX. The long and short of it, as I indicated at the Red Hulk Talk Page, is that Nightscream should not have used his administrator privileges. There was no edit warring, and a legitimate attempt at discussion withPeregrine Fisher. Hopefully the issue in question can go to WikiComics for further review. That is the focus here, not an editor's history. Thank you.

PS - a final thought, since there was a mention of good will. I've improved many, many articles in recent times, and have also welcomed the assistance of a few other editors that backtrack behind me and fix a few small links on every occasion. I have come to appreciate that, and we work well together. If that is not good will, I don't know what is. Asgardian (talk) 01:33, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Asgardian, since you stepped in, what ever goowill you garnered has been squandered by your own staments. Sorry, but pointedly defacing an article, and given the timing multiple articles, does not generate goodwill Those acts also make it very hard to assume good fait. You have made it clear you are willing to play games for your own ends. That taints your edits.

And my apologies for looking for some uninvolved advice before moving this onward. If you poke around you'll notice that my approach was to a set of 5 of the CPC admins, currently univolved and two of whom IMO have been generally supportive of you, and noted I was avoiding the admin that you are currently at odds with. Right here, right now Nightscream and PF's comments were not solicited. The upshot of the comments from BOZ and Emperor seem fairly sound. And if I'm reading them right this should have gone to an RfC or AN/I on the specific topic of your deliberate degradation of Abomination, Rhino, and IIRC, Ms. Marvel coupled with your admission to it. - J Greb (talk) 01:55, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you are incorrect. There has been no deliberate defacing of any articles. It would certainly go against my ongoing goal of improving articles. You have misunderstaood a statement and made the wrong inference (to judge by the mention of other articles). Asgardian (talk) 02:00, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

So it is now your position that you never engaged in a broad pattern of edit warring on Abomination? How interesting. ThuranX (talk) 02:55, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Also, please note, he's repeated his random 'ThuranX is not edit warring here' declaration in the middle of the discussion there about his edit war with NightScream; a move only designed to get editors and admins distracted looking for this purported edit war with me that Asgardian feels obligated to suddenly deny. It's a dirty trick. ThuranX (talk) 05:13, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

The latest example among many: [26] BOZ (talk) 13:58, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Arbitary break (tempted to move to CPC talk)

Could someone PLEASE put a stop to him. He consistently destroys the accuracy and deletes tons of accurate references whenever he feels like it, regardless if this is in complete contradiction with the system he maintains when it suits his objectives. It is not fun at all to repeatedly spend hours upon hours upon hours to search for good references and fact-check even-descriptions just to have him sweepingly delete it all to replace with loose pov. How much do you want to bet that if I reinserted the useful and reliable reference of the creator of both Galactus and Mephisto depicting them as stalemated equals in 1990, he would delete it within an hour, but gladly systematically insert or/and maintain any similar "power match-ups" that he likes the implications of. I really can't take this for a few more years. Most of what he ever does is destroy everything he touches, and it seems impossible to compromise with him no matter what or how long it takes he will maintain _exactly_ the same sweeping inaccuracies. He's simply learned that to wait a few hours to avoid any more edit war bans. Dave (talk) 14:46, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Off the top... yes, it looks like Asgardian still needs to learn to break up his edits to sing actions or sections and provide cleat edit summaries. And a few point items are worrying - the changing/reverting the Dormammu art to miss-attribute the art credits [27] and the removal of the link to a more specific article on Odin. There also seems to be some stylistic issues with hash marks (see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics/editorial guidelines#Titles/Dates/Issue numbers in article text, Wesley Dodds' initial comments) and word choice, but there are also problems with David A's edits/reverts:

• Powers and abilities section should be kept short and simple. ODing on examples is not a good thing.
• Anything sourced to the OHOTMU is suspect. I believe we've been over this before. They absolutely should not be used as definitive or structured in an in-story manner.
• Your upload of File:Dormammu.jpg looks like it was done in lieu of consensus for change. The discussion, Talk:Dormammu#Infobox image never went anywhere, but a month later to slapped the "different" image into the file and updated the FUR.
• While something more than a one line trivia point would be good for the IOM sections, sometimes it isn't possible. And with video games it's important to remember that this isn't a game guide. Some information to explain the character's use in the game but don't go overboard.

- J Greb (talk) 16:16, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I showed the better Dormammu image in the Talk section beforehand, and even Asgardian seemed to have no problem with it. The handbook isn't exclusively referenced. I've used double-references for extra strength of reliability, i.e. BOTH the handbooks AND the comics they base the statements on. Sweeping deletions of dozens of references in the favour of personal bias thin air summaries are not acceptable, and changes to highly inaccurate plot descriptions are not either. Asgardian systematically deletes only the power descriptions that he doesn't want out there, with false justifications of "power match-ups", when these are consistently used everywhere in the comics section, but simultaneously inserts and enforces them whenever a character he likes (such as Odin or Thor) is involved, even if these are highly unreliable such as inserting that Loki is more powerful than DOctor Strange as a "sorcerer supreme" based on an appearance from 1964, long before Strange was powered-up to universe-destroying/recreating, cosmic entity-manhandling levels, and I very much try to avoid unreliable ones such as that. He's not interested in any compromise. He's interested in wanton destruction, or rather calculated deletions of any completely matter-of-fact correct reference statement that makes one of his pets look less than perfect/stalemated by some other character. That's it, that's what he consistently does according to my experience, he twists and distorts and censors. And let's not forget that he admitted the deliberately misleading editing 'justifications'/'I'll use any underhanded tactic that I can get away with'. That other users have also noticed his systematic tendency for manipulation. That he has a proven track record of using sockpuppets (which I personally consider enough to identify the sort of utterly dishonourable individual that should be permanently banned on the spot), and has regularly got banned for systematically using this sort of vandalism. I pretty much genuinely hate him as an individual at this point, and to put this in perspective, JJonz never even got close. Dave (talk) 09:18, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

View from User:Hiding

I think you have three choices. You can try for a community ban by proposing one at WP:AN/I or such like, make a request for comment and suggest a community ban in that, or take it to arbitration. TO be honest, I'd like to take the whole mess to arbitration so the whole lot of us can have our heads banged together. This mess is way too big now, everyone is accusing everyone of bad blood from what I can see. I've got a note on my page from Asgardian accusing Nightscream of something or other, and I'm sitting here wondering how old we all are. Are there teenagers or younger in the room? It would be nice to know. Hiding T 11:22, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

The concern I have is that I'm just looking at one very bad situation, not the whole tangled ball of 3 sided rant. The nub being the edits made on Jan 3, 2009 by Asgardian to Abomination (comics), similar edits made to Rhino (comics) over the Jan 5 & 6, what reads as an admissionabout the Abomination edits, and the retraction here.

Maybe that is enough to start the ball rolling at ArbCom, but I'm not sure. - J Greb (talk) 16:44, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I'll concur with Hiding, re: ArbCom, although an RFC/U as an initial step is still not out of the question. ArbCom may be best, though, as there is still room for community input there as well. BOZ (talk) 17:39, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I fear if you did a poll of ages you'd find an average round about "old enough to know better."

As J Greb points out we do need to focus on the separate issues. While there are a whole host of Asgardian problems I think the one J Greb flags is the most serious one, it is certainly worth taking this to ArbCom although I fear the deja vu might be enough to make your head spin (let alone the sheer amount of evidence that there is to be marshalled). Something needs doing and I trust Hiding's judgement on the best way forward.

The problems with Nightscream's actions are separate and being dealt with over at WP:AN#admin Nightscream, I believe we can mainly keep the two separate and we can avoid the whole "he said"/"she said" and "but sir he was mean to me first" schoolyard business. (Emperor (talk) 00:01, 5 September 2009 (UTC))

Well the problem with arbitration is they decide the scope, so if they take the case we can't limit them to just one user. So maybe an RFC/U is the way forwards. If we're serious about a community ban, I think we need to suggest it and all support it in the RFC. The trouble with an rfc is it might not solve anything. But it might set ground rules that we can use to point to if arbitration follows it. So, Arbitration or RFC, bearing in mind arbitration can choose to look at anything they desire if people present the evidence. I'm willing to take any lumps I'm due, but how do others feel? Hiding T 11:35, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Good points - I have nothing to hide but this whole business has already got an awful lot of "he said", "yes but he did it first" and I suspect it could spin out of control drawing in years worth of edits and we loose the focus, as well as making ian awful lot of work for anyone trying to get up to speed. So perhaps RFC is better but, as I say, I trust your best judgement on this. (Emperor (talk) 19:24, 5 September 2009 (UTC))

Nothing to hide either; that said, I still say RFC is the best next step forward. If the community determines that there is a serious problem from Asgardian, then that would be applied to any future ArbComm case. The last RFC/U I did got a certain trouble user almost entirely off my back for the last nine months or so. :) BOZ (talk) 03:39, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I'm waffling - call me "Kellogg".  :) I think, and always have, that RFC is the best way forward, although I feel that an ArbCom case at this point is also appropriate. My preference is for RFC now and possible Arb later. If you like, we can consult User:Casliber for an opinion, whom I am on rather good terms with? BOZ (talk) 03:41, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

And now, remarkably, I'm having the same sorts of problems with User:Asgardian on the same article, Awesome Android, that prompted an Arbitration decision against him, here. I've tried to work him, as the record shows; he has long times when he shows cooperation and long times when he shows contentiousness, edit-warring, and proclamations that his way is the only sensible way, despite what consensus and MOS show.

He helped drive me away once. I think any editor who drives others away and makes other editors continually debate the appropriateness of his presence presents a serious problem that is addressed in bits and pieces and maybe it's time to address it on lengthier scale. His continued contentiousness is a drain on WikiProject Comics, stealing time and energy we all could be using more productively. -- Tenebrae (talk) 14:37, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, like I said, it's either an RFC or an arbitration request. I don;t really have any answers anymore. Mediation, possibly? I'm worn down from playing "cop", it's not where I want to be anymore. If the admin tools weren't so damn useful for editing, I'd hand them in today. Hiding T 20:27, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

This is ridiculous it is wearing people out and putting people off. This needs sorting out. Anyone got a preference for the best way forward? Arb or RFC? (Emperor (talk) 21:16, 25 September 2009 (UTC))

It is exhausting. I retain good faith in his objectives, since he has done so much good work; nonetheless, there is a pattern of rogue behavior and edit-warring. In any event, I did starts an RfC earlier, here. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:31, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I am still of the opinion that an RFC/U is the way to go. BOZ (talk) 23:53, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Right then WP:RFC/U it is. Who is going on point for this? (Emperor (talk) 13:59, 27 September 2009 (UTC))

Actually, see here: [28]. I think my good colleague Tenebrae was perhaps a tad overprotective of the article, and I've made some changes that accommodate his wishes. That said, I take a dim view of blind reversions that remove legitimate information. This only disadvantages the layman. All T and others have to do is just keep contributing here [29], as the discussion is interesting and will hopefully produce a working model of how to proceed. There's been no real edit warring, and certainly no blind reversions from my corner. I really am trying for the middle ground here.

By the by, since this is J Greb's page, please note I abide by the majority on the Marvel link issue, so long as editors do not attempt to use the power grids presented there as a legitimate source, as they are just as invalid as the Official Handbook of the Marvel Universe. Regards. Asgardian (talk) 06:20, 26 September 2009 (UTC)