Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Asgardian: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 173: Line 173:


What indication is there that any of the other editors have "dropped from view" or have "moved on"? [[User:Nightscream|Nightscream]] ([[User talk:Nightscream|talk]]) 03:40, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
What indication is there that any of the other editors have "dropped from view" or have "moved on"? [[User:Nightscream|Nightscream]] ([[User talk: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: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_comment%2FAsgardian&action=historysubmit&diff=339803635&oldid=339274640]. Let's just move on. There are umpteen articles out there still in need of attention. That's where our effort should be concentrated. [[User:Asgardian|Asgardian]] ([[User talk:Asgardian|talk]]) 04:14, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Revision as of 04:14, 1 February 2010

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.[1]
  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.[2]
  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.[3],
  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.[4]

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.[23]
  2. At Wikipedia: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." [24]
  3. 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)..."[25]

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. [26],
  2. At Juggernaut (comics): "Restoring corrected WIKI-CORRECT version.This was totally unnecessary and uncivil." 10:57, 15 December 2009.[27],
  3. At Juggernaut (comics): "Retaining wikii-correct changes; go to Talk page if there are issues. Added another link" 23:27, 9 November 2009.[28],
  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.[29],
  5. At Rhino (comics): "Corrected first section of PH and retained Wikicorrect peripherals" 06:18, 4 October 2009.[30],
  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.[31]

Incomplete/inaccurate edit summaries

2. Incomplete/inaccurate edit summaries:

  1. At Ms._Marvel: "Banishing bot blah"[32] (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.[33],
  3. At Dormammu: No comment. 00:58, 7 December 2009.[34],
  4. At Dormammu: m (minor). 02:29, 16 August 2009. [35]

Removal of maintenance tags

Removal of maintenance tags as part of a larger edit:

  1. At Ms._Marvel, removes "{{Refimprove|date=April 2009}}" [36],
  2. At: Dormammu, removes "{{Primary sources|date=August 2009}}" [37],
  3. At: Mephisto_(comics): removes "{{In-universe|date=November 2009}} {{Primary sources|date=November 2009}} [38],
  4. At: Mephisto_(comics): removes "{{Primary sources|date=November 2009}}"[39],
  5. At: Scarlet_Witch: removes "{{Primary sources|date=August 2009}}" [40],
  6. At: Eternity_(comics): {{Notability|date=August 2009}} {{Primary sources|date=August 2009}}[41]

Ikip 16:33, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Why not both you and him take a break from the article? Cutno (talk) 17:23, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

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 ([42], [43], [44], [45], [46], [47]), 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: [48].

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 ([49], [50], [51], [52], [53], [54]) 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: [55].

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#Recent edits 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)[reply]

.........

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 ten 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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, Tainted Conformity SCREAM 00:41, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Tainted Conformity, 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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: [56]. 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)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Asgardian&oldid=341218432"