User talk:BOZ

Needing a GI Joe page move undone

BOZ, Marcus Brute moved List of G.I. Joe ARAH characters to List of G.I. Joe characters without discussion. I'm unable to revert it and posted it to WP:Requested Moves saying it was an undiscussed move, but instead of reverting the move like he should have, Anthony Appleyard listed the reversion as a controversial request. Could you help me out on this, please?--Ridge Runner (talk) 00:09, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Infobox artist

Sorry to revert your edit, but there has been a request that all changes be discussed first on the talk page. Best Regards. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:06, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Juggernaut again

Hi, BOZ. Happy New Year! Wish I could begin it on a more positive note: Would you entertain page-protecting Juggernaut (comics) once again? Asgardian and David A are edit warring, with the latter attempting to remove or edit Asgardian's continuous insertion of his disputed and non-consensus edit. Oy, oy, oy.

By the way, had you noticed that the main Steve Ditko fan site, Blake Bell's Ditko Looked Up, appears to be gone? I left a not on the Ditko talk page asking if anyone knew whether it had been archived.-- Tenebrae (talk) 20:44, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

This is incorrect. Note this: [1]. Note that I've asked Tenebrae three times about removing valid information and to actually assist, instead of making blind reversions. Frankly, this is more than a little belligerent, given I broke down the edits in the ES for everyone's benefit. It also unfortunate given that the original, problematic editor appears to have departed and DrBat took your advice. By your own logic and actions, however, Tenebrae should also have been warned.

Unfortunately, I will also have to mention this - and the abrupt and unilateral action re: a month long ban - in my submission to the ANI. I have to say that this action was ill advised. The main focus, however, will be - and should have been prior to this - dealing with the conduct of David A.

Regards

Asgardian (talk) 07:12, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Nope, I hadn't noticed about the Ditko site, mostly because I don't know if I've ever been there before? Was already working on a similar situation with Dormammu, so thanks for letting me know about this one, and let me know about any other hot spots you notice. BOZ (talk) 23:57, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Just a side note... but a facepalm may be in order. Xavexgoem just gave Asgardian a 3 week based on the AN/ANI thread and a pair of posts to David A's talk page. - J Greb (talk) 11:10, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, I asked BOZ for the DOrmammu protection myself, but don't get the Juggernaut one. I had almost completely lost interest, as I didn't have a big problem sicne there were no major actual errors, and mostly let Asgardian do whatever he wanted on that one.

Also, I don't get the facepalm? What's wrong with Xavexgoem banning Asgardian for 3 weeks? It's very low given the extent of the offenses I'll admit (I obviously strongly believe that anyone who uses sockpuppets should be permanently banned from any encyclopedia editing as the main requirement should be not to be a deliberate liar), but he said that it would turn longer if A continued, so maybe it will finally be enough to make him clean up his act? Dave (talk) 11:20, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

BOZ -- thanks for your efforts on this. I'm sorry Asgardian's actions are taking up so much of your time when I know you, like me, would just like to get down to the business of writing and editing articles. I appreciate — I'm sure J and the rest of longtimers do as well. For my part, I'll take this month and try to work with Asgardian on his blanket reverts paragraph and paragraph and see I can make any progress with him that way. Wish me luck. With kind regards, -- Tenebrae (talk) 14:15, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate that. I'm so tired right now, from other things, that it's just driving me out of my mind.  :) J Greb has been trying to work on that as well, and I think there was some sort of progress... but I digress. BOZ (talk) 16:05, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

With the risk of sounding smarmy, I second the thanks. It actually is nice of you to spend time on this. Most people wouldn't. Dave (talk) 11:07, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks from your peers in the community

		The Special Barnstar
		For your tireless, valiant efforts as one of the newer admins, volunteering so much of your time on the needs of your fellow editors. Tenebrae (talk) 14:20, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Juggernaut

Greetings. As I've been unblocked, I would now like to move on to resolving the other issues, which still require discussion. I note your comments here [2]. Yes, while on a technical level you can do this as an administrator, I believe that it was handled incorrectly. What you really needed to do here is have a good look at the Edit Summmary, which would indicate:

1 - David A was not in conflict with me or for that matter anyone on that article. It had been some days since he last edited the article.

2 - In an attempt to keep the peace, I laid down all the changes edit by edit in an effort to spell out what I was doing. This is all in the Edit History of the article. You can also see my constant efforts to speak with Ghidorah linked on the Talk Page, and there were many attempts. In return all we got were blind reverts and almost no commmunication.

3 - Why was it permissible for Tenebrae to make a blind reversion to an inferior version of the article when DrBat was warned not to? What should have happened is someone should have encouraged him to make changes by increments as I had done, and have the Edit Summary reflect this. As I've noted repeatedly, I asked him three times not to delete valid information and to by all means make technical changes, but not to blindly revert. Thankfully, it looks like he's taken that on board.

4 - I would humbly request that you base minimum unblock Dave. I would also like to be unblocked if possible, as there was nothing but cooperation from myself on that article in recent times, and an attempt to resolve the issues.

I like you, and admire the fact that you make an active effort to keep the peace. We could all, however, be not so much better editors but smarter ones. There's a level on which we only sometimes play on, and really need to be there all the time. For example, I think you shouldn't have made that comment (something like "I don't want to hear it"); Tenebrae shouldn't have posted that Barnstar which could to some be construed as gloating (and was not a pleasant task at any rate); I shouldn't have made a follow-up comment to one of Dave's tirades that only served to fuel the fire ("Yup, there you go"); Dave shouldn't have called me XYZ and so on. I suppose the general rule is if we have to think about it twice, then we probably shouldn't type it. As I said, better, and I will certainly try.

Finally, I just wanted to let you know that I am going to be contacting Wikipedia and presenting a case (with a series of examples) that relates to administrators and their conduct. I really feel - and this is NOT personal - that there are too many instances of inexperienced users exercising their administrative power without correctly assessing the situation. I've seen it done several times now, and while most actions have been overturned there is a recurring pattern (also note that you are not the prime example - there is another administrator whose actions have been of real concern and have been questioned several times) and it needs discussion.

There will be no venom in this, and I would have no objection to you commenting. I think you are a fine editor (and quite likely a fine person if I ever met you), but feel that you and few others could benefit from having a mentor who acts as a senior administrator and is a sounding board on all major decisions.

It may come to nothing, but at least I will have been heard.

Regards Asgardian (talk) 01:03, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

To be honest, I really wish there was some sort of "senior admin" - not as a sort of outranking officer or anything, but more of an experienced person(s) that the rest of us can go to freely for advice and help. Maybe if there were more levels of adminship which denote experience. For example, when I post a question or whatnot to the admin noticeboard, I may get a response, maybe two, but it comes from a passerby who - while trying to honestly help - may themselves lack the practical experience to know how to help in my specific situation. So there is merit in that idea, someone who is willing to act as a sounding board from those of us who want/need one; I have needed such advice more than once. The whole admin concept could use a reform, so I say go for it.

When I said "I don't want to hear it; you both need to knock it off.", I know I came off a bit harshly, and I do apologize for that. I think I was gettting frustrated at that point with all the back-and-forth. But to be quite frank, I didn't want to hear it. I really don't want to hear it, from you or Dave or anyone. Edit warring, in my opinion, is an unacceptable non-solution to dealing with editing issues. It's not justifiable, because it's totally unnecessary. All I can really do is warn, protect, and block - and I haven't blocked anyone yet who wasn't a serial vandal. Is the other user purely vandalizing the article? Let me or another admin know, and we'll warn or block if there already was enough warning. Is it merely a content dispute? Take it to the talk page, or article RFC/3rd opinion - if that doesn't work, try mediation. Is it a conduct issue, like you say? Take that editor to RFC/U or even ArbCom or if the behavior is truly serious, try AN/I. You may feel I'm wrong, but to continue fighting over content with David, Tenebrae, DrBat, or whoever is your latest nemesis will simply continue onwards until you decide to let it go. Will article quality suffer if you don't fight to keep every little change you like or get rid of every one you don't? Maybe, maybe not, but it's not the end of the world if it does.

With regards to the Juggernaut article, perhaps it was a bit of a tack-on. But I was also considering the not-too-distant history of the article, so it's not like the addition was totally out of the blue. I'll mull that one over. And since there's no burning need for you to edit that one in a hurry, I'll take more than a few hours to make a decision this time. ;) I think Dormammu is going to have to stay put for now (unless some neutral party can give me a compelling reason) as that conflict was ongoing at the time and prolonged, and it really is my opinion that you and Dave could use a cooling off period and a chance to work together. Thinking about it, I have an idea that, if you guys can agree to try it out, I'll remove the ban on both articles and never attempt it again (with regards to you).

May I make a suggestion? Have you ever looked at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation? I did that with Gavin.collins regarding a D&D article, and while it did not resolve our overall conflict, it did improve the article and we both understood each other a lot better and our roles at Wikipedia as a result. Take a look at some of the open cases and see if there's anything they're doing there that you think might help. If you and Dave agree to get involved in that, I'll go to the ends of the earth to help facilitate it for you. The only thing you need to do first is make an honest attempt at some form of WP's dispute resolution process (RFC, 30, or informal mediation) first, as skipping that step results in the number one reason for a case to be rejected - if you have an article on which you've already attempted one of these processes with no success, and the dispute continued, we can go to Mediation now. I advise you to think about it; I've mentioned it before, and now I'm strongly suggesting it. BOZ (talk) 04:54, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

BOZ, those are all good points and I'm glad we've had a meeting of the minds. As I said, you'd be welcome to offer input on the whole administrator issue. It will, however, take me a little time to source the right place to post and then compile the case. Beyond that, yes, if it comes to it I will try mediation with Dave, although there's still the nagging question of whether his medical condition is the cause his outbursts and reluctance to let go. I think that one is quite a chestnut and would need some very experienced and uninvolved administrators to rule on. We'll see. In the first instance, I'll have a crack at trying to speak with Dave again regarding the invalid Official Handbook of the Marvel Universe. If there's anything else, let me know.

Regards Asgardian (talk) 07:04, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

PS. - For a light-hearted change of pace, I might even tackle a D & D module. :) Asgardian (talk) 07:35, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

We've had a lot of fun and success with those module articles! Look at all the GAs...

As for David's medical condition, I think it's best to let him be the judge of how much it gets in the way of what he wants to do - he seems to understand full well the difficulties it causes for him. If you decide to give dispute resolution a try, and he agrees to it, like I say, I'll work with you both as much as I can. Here's my recommendation. On Talk:Dormammu, start an RFC titled something like "Are company-provided in-universe comic book character guides valid sources for statistics?" or whatever, explain your case succinctly (like, 3-4 sentences, although links to other discussions are OK) and see what you get. David, if you or anyone else wants to set up the RFC instead, that's equally welcome. If that fails to get any kind of consensus, and if David agrees, I'll help you set up a Request for Mediation.

If David's condition really is to be seen as a disability, then it is not something he should be punished for, but rather help given to him if he seeks and so desires (although if it's any kind of professional help he needs, that is way beyond what WP can offer). Also, I really think you should cut down on referring to his condition in a seemingly derogatory sense - it makes you seem like you are mocking his condition, which he probably cannot help, and it makes you look pretty bad. It's like going on a hike and complaining that your friend who uses a cane is too slow; you knew his limitations going in, but instead of working around his handicap or helping him, you taunt him for it. If you really want to keep David enraged at you and ready to fight, I'm sure bringing up his condition at every turn will work. BOZ (talk) 12:55, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. We'll let people's behaviour speak for themselves. Regards Asgardian (talk) 00:19, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and my favourite module is Tomb of Horrors. I was always fascinated by that one and the ways in which careless adventurers could be killed. I even theorized at one point on "micro-solutions" to evading the deadly traps (from memory there were three: the sliding corridor into flame; the green slime and the Juggernaut (no pun intended)). There's even a surefire way to nail the Demi-Lich and lose no one. Perhaps I should publish an on-line guide called "Beating the Tomb of Horrors".

00:28, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

LOL! You can always give it a try - thinking outside the box can (in theory) allow you to beat just about anything in D&D. Now, if you really are serious about tackling some articles about modules, I could work up a short list of ones that have the most potential and need the most work... :) BOZ (talk) 00:39, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, I played the A's; D's; G's; I's; S's (my favourites) and the sequels that came out years later. Also the W's (Lost Temple of Tharizdun?). Truth be known, with a little research you can get the lowdown on most any module. Hope that helps. Asgardian (talk) 00:46, 7 January 2010 (UTC)::About the handicap::

About the handicaps, it's not fun to discuss all the time, but for Wikipedia purposes they make it hard to filter, lie, occasionally to hold my temper, and turn me more obsessive. I have to fight down these kinds of impulses much harder than an average person. Deliberate deceit is also something rather alien to me, and something I in addition find ethically distasteful, so that easily sets me ff. Saying one thing and doing another over and over is not a good way to reason with me. People who are upfront and listen to logic without bias will find me far more agreeable than those who aren't.

About Dormammu. The thing is that we already had a talk discussion and consensus that this version was fine. Then Asgardian went to the general comics talk instead to get another consensus. There they gave me specific instructions about what should be deleted, and that a disclaimer should be inserted before using handbook references, which I did. And Asgardian does not simply restrict himself to deleting these only. The vast majority of references he deletes have nothing to do with the handbook, and he inserts personal opinions such as "considerable power" or "deemed worthy to challenge" instead (if nothing else is available, and they have plenty of validation, fine, I'm not innocent of evaluations either, but to replace an actual quote with a contradiction doesn't make any sense) which makes it very hard for me to take his intents as sincere. It would also help if I could actually trust that once something is cleared up (such as removing certain parts according to J_Greb's and Emperor's instructions) he won't simply return in 1-3 months to delete everything anyway. Dave (talk) 18:53, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Hey David, I understand the tendency to get frustrated in difficult situations, so I can somewhat empathize. I know that, for the specific case of Dormammu and others, there has been discussion on the article's talk page as well as on the comics project talk page. Has there been an actual RFC before? I.e., one that invites comment from uninvolved individuals? That's probably quite a bit different than what you have tried before, and although I can't guarantee any specific resolution from it, you may get something that gives one or both of you more perspective on the issues you are dealing with (often enough being too close to a situation blinds you to the reality of it). If you'd like, I'd be glad to help you set one up. BOZ (talk) 20:21, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Asgardian created a query for uninvolved editors over at the comics talk, which I made adjustments according to, but then he went and deleted almost everything again anyway. Dave (talk) 20:28, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Technically, the comics project talk page will have semi-involved editors because we are all dealing with the same issues. Would you be willing to give it one more go at the Dormammu talk page, an RFC there to invite people other than "the usual suspects" to comment on the issue? If you've never done that before, take a look around at Wikipedia:Requests for comment and see what's up there. I'll gladly set one up for you if you like. In fact, I may just get the ball rolling on my own anyway. BOZ (talk) 23:44, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

What you have to understand is that I'm tired, and frustrated. I don't have the energy to do the same issues forever year in and year out like Asgardian does, I simply can't let an inaccuracy go while still literally finding it painful to continue. I find it very unfair that I have had consensus with me in two different instances, and now we have to go at it again, and again, and again. I have other things to do than repeating myself over and over, and even if it leads anywhere he will probably just ignore it again, or use a sock, or whatever, and you will let him continue, because he's successfully trying to ingratiate himself. I don't have the energy... at all. He's wearing me and others down, and seems like a lawyer able to enjoy doing this forever, just like other users here have been wearing me down with unreasonable biased circular fanatic pointlessness hundreds or thousands of times over, and I really don't see the big problem with the page as it is if censoring most references is the alternative. Dave (talk) 01:08, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Btw: Could you get this ip-checked, to see if the user is a sockpuppet to anybody. It's "traitoR" spelled backwards, and he/she suddenly appeared to make an inaccurate edit on the Ultimate Nullifier and nothing more, which is more than a tad suspicious. Dave (talk) 01:27, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't have checkuser privileges, so I'm afraid I can't do anything for you there; Wikipedia:CheckUser is the place to go.

Well, when you're tired and frustrated, you can either give up and move on, or keep fighting the good fight. ;) Tell you what, I'll start an RFC on the Dormammu talk page, and you can respond there only if you want to; otherwise we'll just watch and see what happens. When I have a little bit of time I'll review what's been going down on the article and its talk page. BOZ (talk) 01:43, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Asgardian has now appeared at my talk page to "advise" against putting a complaint against said sockpuppet, which does seem odd, since I initially did not suspect him here. Although I don't know how to structure complaints in a way that gets through, so there isn't much I can do about it without help.

In any case he's started to delete any accurate "extent of power" (or other) references he doesn't like again, among other things over at Doctor Strange, or more specifically he seems to follow me around to delete any ones I create month in and month out, whereas I always keep his (or maybe it's just overlapping character foci, but it doesn't feel that way when he pops up or feels the need to interfere everywhere just to bombard me with disturbances). Meaning: He's apparently not ever going to mitigate or change his behaviour in the slightest. Dave (talk) 08:24, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok, "slightest" I'll give as he moved the Celestials reference elsewhere, but even in cases we do get a solution, such as Mjolnir it takes such unnecessarily long time to start getting a compromise. Doctor Strange is still cleaned though. Dave (talk) 08:30, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

...There's nothing like print sources, I always say. They just seem to be better researched and more solid, since the writer knows that if he or she gets something wrong, you can't just go online and fix it. I also just added what seems like important background to Dick Ayers early career, including his confirmation of his first Kirby, inking ... but I'd forgotten to sign in! --Tenebrae (talk) 00:35, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

More eyes... again

Hate to download this on you BOZ, but I could use some input. And it covers the ongoing.

See Nova (Frankie Raye), Talk:Nova (Frankie Raye)#Infobox image, and Celestial (comics).

Thanks

- J Greb (talk) 05:13, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

In a related note, do you think this should be added as one of the examples to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Asgardian? It feels like a thinly-veiled threat to me. DrBat (talk) 07:27, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I dunno. He tends to do that all the time, but I don't know if it's due to threats or simply practice regulations about "warning before making a complaint". Dave (talk) 10:10, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd say it's more of Asgardian not wanting another Abomination/Rhino topic ban, as is currently ongoing at Dormammu/Juggernaut. BOZ (talk) 14:53, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

If it gets any worse at Celestial (comics), it may be a good idea to drop the ban on Juggernaut as requested, and move it to that article. We'll see. As for Nova, that seems a bit like me to be fighting over whether apples are better than oranges. BOZ (talk) 14:49, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't want to be posting too many notes here as you receive far too many now as it is, but just quickly: the Celstials issue was settle by myself two days ago. All anyone had to do was check my Contributions, as I did move the relevant section as promised. Nova is fine. I've already agreed that neither image is ideal, and am sourcing another.

Finally, I'm letting you know as a courtesy, based on the comment made here (it is linked) [3]; what I saw going at Galactus yesterday [4] and a general inability to grasp some basic points outlined at Talk pages [5]; I'm reintroducing an action re: David A. Unfortunately, this is where the issues originate, and this is what needs to be resolved. I've tried and tried to reason with this editor, but he can't/won't acknowledge even basci issues. The MC may just be the telling factor, whether we want to acknowledge it or not. You don't have to reply, as I'm just advising you as a courtesy.

Regards Asgardian (talk) 02:05, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

No, David A has been very willing to compromise by adjusting the wording to find a solution that everyone can accept, and does not make major intrusions, simply minor adjustments, flow, or accuracy-corrections, but is regardless blindly censored. Whereas you completely ignore my Talk points beyond in all seriousness proclaiming that you and not Marvel's editorial department have the right to decide what's in continuity or not, and to repeatedly censor the references you personally dislike once again.

Meanwhile your complaints page continues to fill out, and I particularly agree about the new comment that the sheer neverending scale of the problem you are is extremely hard to convey to an outsider who hasn't had to deal with you several hundred times in a row. Oh, and you also contradicted your own insincere "tsk-tsk disapproving" statement about not contacting BOZ. "Regards" and "Please think this through" Asgardian. At this point I'm halfway willing to simply write you off as an Encyclopedia Dramatica troll having a go with Wikipedia, as you show much of the behaviour and attitude patterns. Dave (talk) 09:20, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Galactus and the Cosmic Entities sections

Given that these seems to be turning into the usual problem of censoring any accuracy adjustment I make no matter how trivial, or censoring any contradicting information, and (to repeat from the column above) I have been very willing to compromise by adjusting the wording to find a solution that everyone can accept, in each case. I would like some unbiased outside input to clear it up, and give me some input I can actually trust, so I'm asking you, and Tenebrae as you are editors whose judgement I trust. To me subjectively the two involved editors there seem too severely biased to be willing to compromise in the slightest, and I'm tired of going around in circles about it. (Meaning: I need someone with a clear head, and who isn't cultishly devoted to the character, to evaluate and tell me what is the appropriate thing to do for me here) Dave (talk) 11:13, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd love to help, but I'm not sure what you're asking me to look at, specifically. Is there a discussion ongoing that you can point to? BOZ (talk) 12:58, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

To clarify the situation, there have been various repeated discussions going on about Galactus for quite a long while (including some recent ones at the Cosmic Entities and ModbbOne's talk pages), that usually end with that I've provided lots of contradiction references, and on some occasions even taken the time to dig up the quotes, but the inaccurate facts are nonetheless maintained, or the contradictions censored to only allow a viewpoint of absolute "yay pump-up endorsement", whereas I always keep the references they like, and adjust my sentences to incorporate complaints about lack of neutrality.

TheBalance and MobbOne have a history of repeatedly inserting that the "power cosmic that Galactus is a living embodiment of is the greatest force in the universe" based on an Annihilation crossover book that didn't say anything about being an incarnation (the "force" has also been mentioned as simply absorbing cosmic energy from stars in conjunction with the Silver Surfer), and stated that there were more potent forces around;

Or that "Galactus is the living embodiment of the entire previous universe, and nothing else whatsoever came out of the union, i.e. the Big Bang never happened" based on an origin story that very explicitly shows Galactus and the Sentience of the previous universe to be separate entities when Galactus incubation cocoon is sent out in the universe (this is even the image displayed at the page, that clearly shows this text);

Or censor any references to the Thanos story wherein Galactus' string of serial-genocide is very clearly stated as the actions of an absolutely conceited egomaniac, who is capable of feeding on other energy sources than living beings (also stated that he can feed on stars in the first Secret Wars), and is an individual who is perfectly capable of holding conversation with his "food", but blatantly disregards his social contract as Thanos worded it;

Or that "Galactus embodies one third of everything that exists," despite that he has simply been stated as the balancing factor between the entities Eternity and Death, and as a strictly physical entity by Mark Gruenwald's Quasar series (who wrote Galactus' origin story), i.e. not as an embodiment of anything, but rather as a function, also ignoring all the other high abstract entities that have appeared, that the most recent Guardians of the Galaxy reference is that all abstracts are simply "simplifications" of one single Universal consciousness (i.e. Eternity and Death are simply two expressions of the same entity, and Galactus isn't a balance of anything), or for that matter thew times he has been explicitly described as an "insect" compared to Eternity (Mark Millar's Fantastic Four for example) or lesser entities than Eternity such as the Beyonder (the first Secret Wars series), not remotely as an equal. And that the handbooks also have never referred to Galactus as anything beyond a physical entity fulfilling an extremely important function, or even referred to Eternity as Galactus parent, who was reborn during the Big Bang, not merged with him;

Or insert that Galactus teleported an entire (somehow by machinery already moved) galaxy even though the reference "Rom: Spaceknight" issue itself was kept vague whether he teleported it or a planet within it, and later issues directly cotnradicted it, by saying that (only) the planet (Galador) was moved away from its usual galaxy, and that the handbooks have also repeated this when describing the event, and not mentioned any galaxy moving;

Or insert that "Galactus' solar-system sized former home is the universe's greatest energy source", taken from a story wherein Reed Richard's said "might", the spaceship itself was destroyed, the energy absorbed by Doctor Doom, and then shown as having far less power than a "Cosmic Cube"/Beyonder, i.e. not remotely the greatest energy source, and the ship in question is not even around anymore;

Or for that matter deleting the slightest adjustment I make to the page, not matter how tiny, such as clarifying that Galactus explicitly had lots of help from Doctor Strange when restoring himself from an explosion that destroyed his body (later occasions have shown Galactus getting killed from damage).

Meaning, at this point it to me it very genuinely feels like I'm talking to two fanatic scientologists who will censor anything they don't like, no matter how factual, and insert phrases of greater overblown endorsement than anything that Marvel's editorial department or the books themselves has ever remotely acknowledged or even the references they use can support. I freely admit that I have a bias of disliking the thematics when a writer uses a character to justify genocide, yes, but for one I don't dislike the character as such any more than say Dormammu, whose motivation in-story is to slaughter all conceptual entities, take control of reality, and turn all life and afterlife into an eternal torture camp (nice guy...), and I have nonetheless tried to make accurately presented in terms of extablished power scale. It is just a fictional character after all.

However, I do have a major problem with when certain fans get so overenthusiastic, one-sided, and overly protective in their endorsements that it turns completely unfounded, misleading, and censoring of anything that contradicts their preferences/claims as less than absolute story notions. They tend to completely miss the point about the way I think no matter if I try to show the courtesy of explaining it (as I again tried to do in MobbOne's Talk and the Cosmic Entities sections), and start to talk about how great their character is, rather than acknowledge the contradictions, or try to tone them down to nothingness "he encountered this character" mentions, so there is no middle-way it seems.

Where you come in is that this also means that I'm so jaded at this point that I can't take almost anything they said as non-insanely biased (or at least not as long as they continue to censor the tinies detail), so I need some sensible outside input about what I should do? Should I take the (considerable) time to dig up quotes and issue numbers again, only to have these ignored and censored once more, or what should I do? Or could you even find the time to help Tenebrae check it over and find a neutral solution? To me this is the bad side of the character articles in a nutshell situation. If complete devotees gather they will easily censor the page from any references they dislike, ignore arguments and contradictory quotes, and simply state that adjusting for accuracy and allowing both sides of the issue constitutes an "edit-war" that they of course have no part of... right. This "I own the pages" thing was going on over a year ago, after I finally lost all energy of repeating myself over and over in the Talk, only to have it ignored, and I have no enthusiasm about entering it again, but also severely dislike when Wikipedia is used for some sort of one-sided propaganda purposes, especially if it connects to just rationalising genocide. Dave (talk) 12:47, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

To be honest, I'm really not sure what to do about that situation. I mean, if you've got editor(s) who are going to do their darndest to keep an article the way they like it, there's only so much an admin can do directly. That's a situation that's not unique to Galactus. I could protect the page if there is edit warring, but if as you say talk page discussion resolves nothing then we would be back to where we started when the protection runs out. If you've said it all before and it all got ignored, I wouldn't want you to waste your time on the article's talk page. I know you've said you don't see a point in using mediation with Asgardian, but have you considered using the dispute resolution process with these other users? I don't really have any comments specific to what sort of content the page should contain, as I have no real preference in that matter. BOZ (talk) 13:05, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

But this is about blatant severely biased censorship and misinformation, not about preference. To me the entire point of Wikipedia is to maintain as many (referenced) sides of an issue as possible. I don't censor the ones they prefer, and have even inserted several of them myself. I feel a strong fundamental wrongness to this type of thing going on. Couldn't you and Tenebrae (or someone else you suggest) go in and mention some sort of compromise to keep it somewhat balanced, or maybe adjust my edits in a way that you consider acceptable? Dave (talk) 13:39, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't usually like to jump into content disputes unless I have some kind of idea what to expect, but I could take a look when I have the time - which may or may not be soon. I don't have access to most of the comics in question (and for those which I do own, I'd have to dig them out and take a look), so I can only go by what you say you see there and what they say they see there, and if I don't remember what happened in that particular comic I'll have to go and look it up to be on a more even ground. Also, in some cases it's a question of interpretation; are you "right", are they "right", or is there no "right answer"? It's a situational thing, I guess. Your "censorship" might be their "keeping out irrelevant details", your "misinformation" might be their "misinterpretation" - I can't know that until I've seen the source material myself. That's why I don't ususally get involved unless I know what to expect. I can tell you that I have most of Byrne's run on FF, and a large chunk of the 1990s Silver Surfer series if that helps; can't think of what else off the top of my head you might need me to look at. BOZ (talk) 16:08, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, I see it more as allowing both sides of an issue and keeping things as reliable as possible, but there have been an awful lot of very incoherent discussions in the old Galactus Talk archives, and you can see the beginnings of more recent ones at User_talk:Mobb_One and Talk:Cosmic entity (Marvel Comics), which I haven't had the energy to fully commit to yet until I think that it actually may be worth it, but the quickest way to see what the matters/issue references of content are in this case, you can see here (if you have read the Byrne FF run you will probably remember that the Skrull prosecutor really was spitting) and here.

For starters these images clearly show Doctor Strange helping Galactus in reconstituting himself: http://img383.imageshack.us/img383/2990/death48gz.jpg http://img205.imageshack.us/img205/4605/death57vs.jpg http://img205.imageshack.us/img205/811/death61jw.jpg http://img437.imageshack.us/img437/6421/death73ur.jpg and this clearly shows the sentience of the previous Universe to be separate from Galactus when it propels him away from itself during the Big Bang: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Galan-galactus.jpg I could start finding or uploading more specific scans as you ask for them. Dave (talk) 16:46, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

The Trial of Reed Richards was definitely a classic.  :) I vaguely remember the frothing Skrull prosecutor - mad with rage at the being who had killed so many Skrulls.

I see "I try to reconstitude Galactus and the otehrs before it's too late" as Strange fights Death in the first image, and then in the fourth image Galactus is back and the Surfer and Nova wonder if it was Galactus's power that saved them and reassembled them, while Strange smiles knowingly. I'm with you there; Strange clearly helped Galactus restore himself (or at least tried to help).

On the "birth of the universe" picture, it is clear that the rocketing starship is flying away from something - some big orangey-yellow mass of energy (the Big Bang, presumably), but wheter the sentience of the universe is located in the energy, or is with the ship, or is omnipresent is unclear to me. The voice appears to be with the ship, but it could in reality be projected from anywhere and everywhere. BOZ (talk) 18:29, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, I read the "Go now" comment as someone sending him away (i.e. the universe sending the incubated Galactus away from itself as it starts to explode), and in addition to this the editorial handbooks have mentioned Eternity as being reborn in the Big Bang, Galactus referred to the entity as "father" during the Trial of Galactus, and there certainly was more than one "product" coming out of the Big Bang explosion. He was never stated to encapsule it within him, simply to have been incubated within it and transformed into a "galactic ravager." (Which was a weird statement. Was this some sort of revenge action from that universe for going through temporary destruction, or simply wishing to be remembered for something even if it was someone going around killing a few billion people a month?) Yet they continue to insert "Galactus is the product of the union between the "Sentience of the [previous] Universe" and Galan" over and over instead of the neutral "a product" that I have changed it to, or my most recent attempt "Galactus was created from the union between the "Sentience of the [previous] Universe" and Galan" (although I would prefer it as "Galactus was created from Galan's incubation within the "Sentience of the [previous] Universe"" to keep it completely matter-of-fact). They revert either to the biased and imho severely misleading one. Dave (talk) 18:45, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

You might be right; I suppose it's a matter of individual interpretation at that point. It doesn't seem important to say that Galactus was separated from sentience at that point (whether he was separated or not), and I would figure it's enough to say that the sentience sent him out into the universe. As far as him being a ravager, I'd simply say that's a matter of universal balance - we have cosmic entities that preserve and create life, and we have those that destroy instead. BOZ (talk) 18:57, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not the type to really accept that rationale, as scientifically speaking there is no "cosmic balance", even natural laws are fluid with time and cicumstance, and certainly not in a "evil must be preserved" new age sense, nor in a social-Darwinian one, as all living beings die anyway without some giant guy in a purple suit eating them instead of non-sentient stars, and I really didn't like Odin's Mussolini rationale of him being a "storm" to "test" civilisations, so everyone who couldn't stand up to him "deserved to die"... that's way too Hitler for me. On the other hand cosmic entities that simply embody natural force without specifically targetting only living beings as anything other than a side-reaction, such as Entropy, are much easier to accept, as they do not carry inherent ideology within them, simply scientific relevance. (And Galactus would be as well if he simply went around destroying planets randomly, whether populated or not) Then again, Hitler was very into Viking mythology (and Spartan society), so it may be the first time we actually see the Viking gods in full psychopathic bloodthirsty ideology character. Later Jeph Loeb made a more sympathetic attempt to explain Galactus as holding an even worse threat in check through the power he absorbs, but that still doesn't check with why he doesn't feed on stars instead. Hmm, straying again...

Anyway, so do you agree that it should be mentioned that Strange helped Galactus; and that the neutral "a product" or "was created from" are preferable to stating that Galactus was the only thing that came out of the union as a definitive fact?

Or that "The consequences of the storyline in Fantastic Four #242-244 (May-July 1982) were examined in Fantastic Four #262 (Jan. 1984), wherein the living sentience of the Marvel Universe was presented to make a validation of the existence of Galactus in the Marvel Universe, whereas the victims were represented by a frothing Skrull prosecutor. This attracted controversy from Howard University Professor of Literature Marc Singer, who criticized writer-artist John Byrne for using the character as a means to "justify planetary-scale genocide." is NPOV, given that the presented Skrull really was frothing, and then Byrne really did let Eternity show up as a "higher purpose ask no more" approval stamp counterpart? Dave (talk) 19:17, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Good observation on the Odin-Hitler thing – I wouldn't have thought about it that way until you made the comparison.

When editing articles, I try to be a literalist as much as possible, drawing as few of my own conclusion as I can in the interest of WP:OR and WP:V (it's a slippery slope).

I would agree that mentioning Strange helping Galactus in the context I mention above sounds good. Unless we know for a fact that Galactus was the only thing created by the union of Galan and the universal sentience, it is not appropriate to state that he was the only thing: therefore I'd say "was created from" would be appropriate, and "a product of" is OK but perhaps less so.

Your paragraph seems to meet NPOV, although I have not verified the information against any sources personally. BOZ (talk) 20:25, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok. I'm glad to hear it. Would you be willing to do a verification and maybe reinsert these specific edits to the page to avoid any more "not so merry" go-around again? Dave (talk) 20:33, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I'll take a look and see later this evening. BOZ (talk) 23:49, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok. Thanks. Dave (talk) 23:54, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Just a reminder, in case you forgot about this, but no need to hurry if you simply didn't have time for it yet. If you need any other scans, I'm willing to provide them. Dave (talk) 21:45, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Nope, didn't forget, just been busy - will find the time to look into it over the weekend. BOZ (talk) 23:13, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok. No problem. Is it possible that I could present some of the further censoring/fact-twisting issues to you down the line through further scans? Dave (talk) 11:26, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

No problem. BOZ (talk) 21:22, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I will go through you in the future then. I also appreciate that you made the promised changes in the Galactus article. Given that this is the praxis both I, Asgardian, and most others use elsewhere I also inserted clarifications regarding who called the character what, and made some other minor error-corrections or clarifications.

However, I noticed that you did not reinsert specifics regarding the Trial, i.e. something in the vein of: "The consequences of the storyline in Fantastic Four #242-244 (May-July 1982) were examined in Fantastic Four #262 (Jan. 1984) which attracted controversy. At the conclusion of the story the sentience of the Marvel Universe was presented to make a validation of the existence of Galactus, whereas the victims had been represented by a frothing Skrull prosecutor, which Howard University Professor of Literature Marc Singer criticized, claiming writer-artist John Byrne used the character as a means to "justify planetary-scale genocide."" Or at least something that clears up how Byrne went about giving an approval stamp, and that Singer apparently referred to using the "spirit of the universe" to justify genocide. Did you prefer the loose wording instead?

Also, it was mentioned in the Dormammu Talk section that you were the one wrote up the (to me somewhat unclear) handbook regulations description. If this is the case, could you perhaps find the time to read through the discussion and give some input regarding the different interpretations and how this relates to this specific article? Dave (talk) 10:33, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Dave, as far as I know I never promised to make any changes, just simply agreed to look over what you had available and then I would make changes as I saw fit. This I did. I removed the bit about "the product of" and Asgardian seemed to agree that was a good idea. I added the bit about Doctor Strange helping out and Asgardian removed the whole part in response; I suppose if we can agree to disagree, it's better not to mention it at all (and if he really did need Strange's help to pull that off, then it really wasn't Galactus's accomplishment at all, was it?). The rest of your suggested changes I am not so sure of at this time - I don't feel comfortable speculating on Byrne's motives, for example. And I was definitely not the one who wrote up the OHOTMU restritctions! :) I generally disagree with that whole notion, but I defer to those with more experience on the matter. BOZ (talk) 16:11, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Really? J_Greb gave the following reply: "Dave, the way BOZ phrased the RFC was general terms, not specifically for this article. And that's how I'm looking at it - the general use of the OHOTMU and by extension DC's Who's Who. As for your concerns about the P&A for this specific article, I'll take a run at what I consider important below." But I may have misread it. In any case, given your previous involvement in the issue, I would appreciate more input at the Talk.

As for the story mention, I think that it could at least be mentioned how Galactus' existence was verified, i.e. by having Eternity appear. There are also an awful lot of blind reverts going on in the Galactus article of any accuracy correction I do, no matter how tiny. Even replacing "a weakened starving galactus" (which perfectly illustrates the inherent severe bias of the article btw) used twice after each other, with "In this state" for the latter mention to improve the language, was cut out.

Btw: So you're that 24... IP fellow? I thought that was someone independent. I can't quite say that I approve, but since you're doing it openly, do harmless edits, and it's not a separate handle. it's not a sock. Dave (talk) 11:58, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

That's how I look at it. I did begin the Dormammu RFC as J Greb mentions, but I don't see where he's saying that I had anything to do with writing any restrictions. I don't know who did come up with the restrictions against using OHOTMU material, as that came about at least a few years ago. I'm really not sure what to do with every little bit you want to try to get in there, because as you know you've got two or three other editors at any given time who will disagree. Another RFC there perhaps, if you think that will actually solve anything? BOZ (talk) 14:48, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, I apparently misread it since the context was meshed together. In any case, your thoughts/input would be appreciated in the Talk, as Asgardian is doing his best to divert from the context of J_Greb doing an actual clarification.

As for Galactus, I don't think that it would help, as they revert anything whatsoever that I do, no matter how harmless, or whether Asgardian enforces the principle elsewhere. Despite just claiming to have cleaned up the Galactus P&A section in the Dormammu Talk, it is virtually unchanged contents-vise. My best option is to go through yourself.

For the latest batch:

Asgardian allows narrator comments about the entity, even though he argues in the Doctor Strange talk that such are unacceptable, and helps to censor "who said what" clarifications of statements, i.e. "Galactus has been described as "the physical, metamorphosed embodiment of a cosmos" rather than "the Human Torch has called Galactus "the physical, metamorphosed embodiment of a cosmos". and removing the first part of "story narration has described the character as "the most awesome living entity in the cosmos." "; Or states that hierarchy insertions and "power match-ups" are unacceptable for the convenience of enforcing censoring of Dormammu or multiple other pages, yet states that Eternity and Galactus are "fellows"/equals in Eternity's page, or "As a living force of nature set between the conceptual entities Eternity and Death" in the Galactus one.

He also allows factual errors and misleading statements to remain, such as "Galactus deemed the race corrupt" when nothing of the sort was said, or "Annihilus binds Galactus, intent on using the entity's energies to destroy the universe. " even though what was shown and said is that Annihilus used Galactus to destroy and sample the energies of worlds without being allowed access to it himself, and to then use him as just a bomb to annihilate all life (as outlined by John Byrne's "Last Galactus Story" restarting the Marvel Universe is Galactus' main funciton, although it obviously wasn't show whether the plane would have succeeded), or stating that Hunger was "defeated" by Galactus when it stated outright that Galactus was "less than nothing" in comparison, and Galactus himself said "Yes, I sense that this is true".

He and TheBalance even go so far in their tag-team blind reverts that they enforce "a starving, weakened Galactus" twice after another, instead of allowing the language-correction "When in this emancipated state," and remove the very NPOV "At the conclusion of the story, Eternity - the living sentience of the Marvel Universe - was presented to make a validation of the existence of Galactus" clarification. That's at the level of reverting just for the sake of being annoying. Dave (talk) 12:49, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

How about this; try some baby steps. If you've got fairly uncontroversial edits (grammar and spelling corrections, mostly), try those first, and let it sit for a few hours or a day or so. Then try something only slightly disputed, and allow time for discussion on that. BOZ (talk) 13:27, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

That is what I've been trying several times, and these were what I thought to be small and uncontroversial changes, but the slightest thing is nonetheless undone, so the only way I can make corrections seems to be through yourself. Dave (talk) 12:29, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, I can't do that for you forever; ultimately you have to solve your own problems, although I can do my best to help. Let's try some more examples, like we did before. What other little changes were you trying to make, and how can we resolve that? Specifically, are there apparently uncontroversial changes such as grammar and spelling corrections, and the like, which failed to take? If not, we'll step up from there. BOZ (talk) 15:57, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I only have these problems with just TheBalance and Asgardian. Anyone else and I've been able to work out compromises. Anyway, I think I described them all in my second-to-last post above: [6] Dave (talk) 22:29, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

I meant to ask you something the other day and the huge page crashed my Firefox :) No joke. Hekerui (talk) 00:32, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

LOL - sorry about that! The page definitely needed an archive. Would you believe that my 2009 talk page was considerably longer than the previous three years put together? :) BOZ (talk) 00:43, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

That's what a mop does to you. Hekerui (talk) 00:56, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Mediation

I suppose it is an idea. I'm open to suggestions. I'm just tired of comments such as the latest here: [7]. Regards Asgardian (talk) 05:48, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't see what good it would do, as my entire problem with you is that your word cannot be trusted in any way or form. Meaning, we have come to agreements before only for you to blatantly break them as soon as convenient, and the rationalisations you use could regularly easily be used against you in situations you are involved with elsewhere. I get no sense of sincerity whatsoever, and can't take anything you say at face value anymore. Lying to me enough times in a row will do that. To consistently overlook this would be for me to embrace your way of insincere game-playing, and that's anathema to my personality. I can't do it. That said, I'm consistently very reasonable towards anyone I do get a sense of honesty from, and when censorship or manipulation is not what drives them. That said, you have spent almost all of my energy for Wikipedia. It was meant to be a relaxing distraction, not a chore, so I will probably gradually lessen my involvement, much like previously. Congratulations, you have succeeded in your task to illustrate the weaknesses of the system, spread misinformation, and wear people down. I hope that you are proud. Dave (talk) 12:23, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I think that's quite an inappropriate response. Even if Asgardian were being insincere, it would be enough to say "I don't see what good it would do, as you know already why I feel can't trust you." And if he were being sincere after all, then it is you holding onto a grudge, which is definitely not helpful. If you are completely unwilling or unable to work out your frustrations with Asgardian, then it may indeed be best to step away. I don't think that is necessary though, as I don't think this situation is beyond repair if all parties are willing to sit down and just talk like reasonable people instead of attacking each other. BOZ (talk) 14:37, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I was just coming by to say hi to my my friend BOZ, since I've been away on deadline work and crazy busy since Jan. 10, but wow, this is scaring me off!  :-)  --Tenebrae (talk) 15:50, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Don't be scared! :) BOZ (talk) 18:18, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I have a question: Why are the comments of some editors, like Emperor and Peregrine Fisher, on the Draft Page, but not the Live Page? Also, was comics article editor/administrator User:Jc37 notified? Nightscream (talk) 09:20, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

You'll have to ask them! :) I have notified all three of the RFC, but as of yet they have not chosen to comment on the live page. Emperor's comments were copied from the comics project talk page to the draft page (by either Hiding or Tenebrae, I think, I don't remember), and PF has only commented on the draft page before we went live - if any of them, or anyone else, wants to comment on the live page they are welcome to do so at any time. BOZ (talk) 12:36, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

As I said to Tenebrae, it is actually David A who needs mentoring. If he doesn't curtail the comments pronto, he's going to get himself into real trouble (the last few have been screamers). There really aren't any lasting edit wars - except on those articles that Dave chooses to become involved in. A look at Galactus (and here [8]; [9]) will tell you that he is in fact the common denominator (not myself).

Regards Asgardian (talk) 04:46, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

That's a good point, actually - Dave does need to tone it down, and if he can't do it by himself then maybe he needs some guidance from a patient hand. If it came down to arbitration between the two of you, it would probably be best to seek mentors for both, because failing that I can imagine lengthy topic bans (i.e., stay away from each other if you can't get along) or something else unpleasant coming out of ArbCom. BOZ (talk) 12:57, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Let's hope he can. There's actually enough now to get him flat out banned until he can guarantee there will be no more outbursts, but hopefully it won't come to that. Asgardian (talk) 00:46, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Arbitration request for a permanent ban on Asgardian

You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. I hope you don't mind me naming you as a party; The arbitration fill-out form provided spaces for four involved parties, including the filing party (me). This left the focus of our efforts (Asgardian), and two left over, so I chose you and Tenebrae, because you spearheaded the RfC, and because Tenebrae has supported my observations on the RfC Talk Page of Asgardian's WP:GAME behavior when criticized. If you feel I should not have named you, I apologize; just let me know, and I'll try to amend this.

There are two spaces available for the other parties to comment. According to the Arbitration guide, State your request in 500 words or fewer, citing supporting diffs where necessary. You are trying to show the Arbitrators that there is a dispute requiring their intervention; you are not trying to prove your case at this time. If your case is accepted for Arbitration, an evidence page will be created that you can use to provide more detail. Since one of the spaces provided must be for Asgardian to comment, the other will go to you or Tenebrae, though I suppose the second one of you to get there can simply create another.

Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Request for Permanent, Site-Wide Ban on Asgardian and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for Arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 22:10, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice. I was out all day, visiting with family - tomorrow should be a fairly busy day, and the next day as well, but I'll try to find some time at some point to look things over. BOZ (talk) 05:16, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

S'okay. But why are you now saying on the Arbitration page that you're against banning, when you expressed no such opposition to this when I brought it up to you on Feb 1 (below)? You were the one who spearheaded the RfC, so I'm a bit perplexed. Isn't it clear to you that Asgardian has no intention of conceding that he has a problem with his policy violations and his WP:GAME behavior? What good is "mentorship" if the person refuses to admit that there is a problem? What would a mentor do? Step in and tell him when he falsely accuses a critic or editor whose edits he disagrees with of being "emotive"? Tell him to respond to attempts to communication when he refuses to do so? Asgardian's problems can only be remedied by a decision on his part to cease this behavior, or taking away his editing privileges. After all that's happened (including the 18 AN/I threads that you yourself pointed out), I don't see why so many people are reluctant or afraid to admit that the only course of action he has left to us is to ban him. Nightscream (talk) 07:56, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I neither oppose nor support banning/blocking him. I agree that he doesn't acknowledge any wrongdoing on his part, but I am hopeful that some sort of mentorship (or whatever) would help with any further disputes. I'm doubtful as to whether that will work or not as it requires his participation, but I figured I'd propose it all the same. If that's not going to work, or if ArbCom decides that he should be blocked long-term, then I can only say that he missed all the warning signs along the way and it really shouldn't be a surprise to him. I'm still hoping for a change on his part, though. BOZ (talk) 08:07, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, given his long list of notices that you linked to yourself, and consistent complete embracement of insincere manipulation and subterfuge, I very much don't see what good it would do beyond giving him further skill in honing his system for advanced trolling. The need to assume good intentions hundreds or possibly thousands of times in a row, regardless of all evidence to the contrary, really does empower him and others like him immensely. I have absolutely no enthusiasm for having to deal with his relentless tactics indefinitely. Dave (talk) 09:40, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

See, this is the sort of refusal to take decisive action that I've never understood from all the editors who come across Asgardian-related matters. It's bad enough when uninvolved outsiders are like this; When people like you, who know his history, and spearheaded an RfC say these things, it's just mind-boggling.

Why would you propose a solution that you know wouldn't work??? This makes no sense. "Mentoring" implies teaching him to do something that he doesn't know how to do; This isn't the problem here, because Asgardian's shortcoming is one of character, and not ability. In order for "mentoring" to work, he has to be willing to admit that he has a problem, and acknowledge the authority of the mentor. But if he's never admitted that his behavior is a problem, and employs the manipulative, intellectually dishonest statements to avoid doing so, and habitually ignores or attacks people with snide innuendo and personal ad hominem remarks when they challenge or criticize him (watch--I'll bet he'll quote this very post in the coming days of the Abitration case), then what suggests to you that he'll acknowledge a mentor? Why acknowledge a mentor when he won't acknowledge us? Wasn't the RfC the last opportunity for him to exhibit a genuine "change", BOZ? I think so. How many more chances, blocks, RfCs, etc. is he or anyone else to be allowed before it is considered reasonable to conclude that he is incorrigible?

I mean, on the one hand, the things you say about him appear to be in agreement with me, yet you insist on this non-committal neutrality with respect banning? Don't you understand that it is the responsibility of those of us in the community who are most familiar with him to put an end to all the strife he causes? If we don't, then who will? Whose responsibility do you think it is? Don't you understand that you're precisely one of the people that ArbCom is looking to for indication of what to do, and that by not being firm on this, you're the one empowering further? Please reconsider. With due respect my friend, if you don't do something when you know that you're one of the people who needs to, then you're only part of the problem. Nightscream (talk) 06:38, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I will remove that part of my statement if you believe it is harming rather than helping. BOZ (talk) 12:37, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Here's my feeling on the matter, so that you don't need to ask to get where I'm coming from. The reason I spearheaded the RfC? Precisely the "refusal to take decisive action" that you reference. There was quite a bit of complaining going on amongst various people, but nothing was being done except business as usual. In fact, there was even an agreement among several admins to do an RFC/U a few months before I even started working on it - but no one did anything about it. So, I figured, might as well be me. I would give everyone a platform to finally air these grievances in a proper format. That's all I wanted. I was not looking for any specific sanction to be placed, although I understood that the RFC could (and in all likelihood would) be used in that manner at some future point. Like I said above, if Asgardian persisted in his behavior after that point, then "he missed all the warning signs along the way and it really shouldn't be a surprise to him" that someone would seek sanctions against him. And, indications do seem to be that we haven't quite gotten through to him yet.

But, I felt that an ArbCom case now was too soon, personally. I started the RFC a mere six weeks ago. I suppose "too soon" is arbitrary, but how I feel is how I feel - not that I was going to suggest for you to back down if you felt the time was right, so I suggested you go ahead with your plan and I would help. Looks like sharing my position was not so helpful! I'll tell you what I was going to do though. I would give it some more time, and if the disputes and edit warring continued (and they have, so far, albiet less intensely) then I was going to bring it to the comics talk page to seek a long-term topic ban on certain articles. If you feel that would help your cause, I can switch out my less popular idea for that one. However, I do not support an indef block, and I cannot support something I do not believe in. I don't think I ever gave any indication anywhere that I did want such a thing, and if you came to that conclusion I'm not sure how that happened. BOZ (talk) 13:37, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I used to be the same way, and explicitly avoided taking any actions against him for a long time despite all the problems and actually being asked to do so, since I thought that he could be reasoned with, given that he seemed to make an effort with the edits and all. But a couple of hundred instances later giving me exhaustive familiarity with his methods, including that he largely seemingly deliberately distorts information in his edits, and being proven that he had no such compunctions against myself, and is so underhanded that he's willing to use my handicaps as a weapon, I'm convinced that he's a somewhat unusual type of particularly manipulative troll. He's a consummate liar. It's what he does, and even defines him so far as being what he is at a core level. And especially given that this is an environment dependent on honest facts, this makes him especially dangerous/his contributions particularly suspect. Then again, being an anal-retentive/OCD truthsayer who tend to collide with him, I'm one of the people who has to take the hardest continuous blow from him being allowed to continue, and automatically sees it as a moral affront on a fundamental level. That's one of my defining traits, and may be the reason for him getting an ongoing sadistic kick of latching on to me over time. Dave (talk) 10:05, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Btw: Has anyone considered the possibility that he may get paid by Marvel for unofficially editing articles (even though this isn't allowed by Wikipedia)? It would explain the inherent contradiction in his manipulative uncompromising attitudes, and relentless extremely time-wasting drive for continuing. I've even caught the (conceited) new editor Stephen Wacker do some (rather tasteless and obnoxious) letter column comments that seem to mirror Asgardian's own perceptions, or reflect frustration and contempt for exactly the type of people who tend to contribute here. Even making direct comments about hating the handbook (which is one of A's biggest pet peeves), and that now that he's decided on (satirical) "official statements" people should immediately quote it here. Then again, after Jeph Loeb sarcastically mentioned me in an interview (likely due to that old silly "Powers of the Hulk" page I created long ago), and my old stalker JJonz kept deliberately hinting that they were the same person, that was also enough to set my paranoia alarms running. I tend to automatically see patterns, even when they don't really mean anything. Dave (talk) 09:07, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, I suppose that any number of people on here are getting paid to edit Wikipeida - you never know. Still, that's kind of a hard thing to prove, so unless you have something more solid to go on... it's probably not the case here. BOZ (talk) 13:28, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

The statement is harmful, but at the same time, I don't want to squelch dissenting opinions. I just wish that such dissent were backed up by reason and evidence, instead of the same skittishness toward drawing a line in the sand. I would far prefer if you were convinced that Asgardian needs to be banned, especially given that I had thought we were in agreement over his incorrigibility (a point that you seem to agree with). You say that if that Asgardian's behavior persisted after the RfC, that you'd expect a sanction, and that we haven't gotten through to him "yet", but then you say ArbCom is too soon. How is it too soon? This has been going on for a few years now. What more do you need? Banning, and other sanctions, are for when an editor has exhausted the community's patience. What standard do you keep with which you find it reasonable to say that this is the case? You feel the time should be right? Which time is this? During a full eclipse?

You say wanted to see if the edit warring and disputes continued. Did you not see his behavior toward Off2riorob on the Beyonce talk page? Although Asgardian was right in terms of content, in terms of behavior, he was up to his usual tricks, including his stock use of "emotive" to dismiss his opponent's position, without specifying the passage or edit summary that was "emotive". Did you not notice that on the RfC page and the Arbitration page, he has continued his assertion that the editors he has disputed with, as well as those on the RfC page, were mostly "inexperienced"? This is the baldfaced lie, BOZ. You've got 40,000 edits since February 06, whereas Asgardian has 9,000 since September of that year. Your tenure and edits dwarf his, as do 13 of the other people who participated in the RfC. He responded to this by continuing his lie and adding to it, saying, "Many of these editors are very inexperienced and/or have been cautioned or blocked". Again, most of the 18 are more expierenced than Asgardian, and have far fewer blocks than he does. Some have one or two. One has 7, another 12, and another 17. Asgardian is tied with one of them for the second highest number of blocks, with twelve. This sort of lie is indeed a continuation of his behavior, one that is not addressed by a "mentorship" or "topic ban". These sort of remarks and personal attacks are unacceptable, and it has continued on the Arbitration page itself. Nothing has changed, despite Asgardian's claims to that effect.

I don't think he's being paid by anyone. Nightscream (talk) 01:26, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

You and I should have spoken more about what where we stand before proceeding; if you had known that I was not completely on the same page, you could have proceeded differently or with someone else. (To tell the truth, I was suprised when you decided to move on with me as an involved party in the ArbCom.) As to "if his behavior persisted after the RfC", well the RfC isn't technically over yet - it's stale, but it's still open; at least, that's how I have been approaching it. I have observed instances here and there where the behavior persisted, which I still consider during the RfC (which really is semantics I suppose, as you'd exect someone to shape up a bit when the spotlight is on them), although I have seen a slight adjustment and a claim of willingness to do better. I did not have a specific timeline in mind of when is too soon and when is not too soon, but I imagine if I had seen anything particularly egregious, or if the pattern had continued more or less on the same tragectory say by March-April, then I would have said enough is enough and brought the idea of topic bans to the table. I understand that you are not alone in feeling he is irredeemable by his own choice, and I feel that if the ArbCom agrees with you, then so be it. If they don't agree that he should be banned, then I want to push for the ability to apply stiffer restrictions until the message gets across. One thing I do not want to do is just "give him another chance" with a smile and handshake, and have him say "Oh yeah, you don't have to worry about me" and just get more of the same.

I only caught the beginning of the Beyonce scuffle (and I only caught that because I saw you posting on each other's talk pages which made me curious!) so I didn't see what went on after that. That example is therefore part of the problem - he is maybe or maybe not correct in terms of content, but often enough in terms of behavior he is in the wrong. Denigrating one's opponent by making them seem foolish, hysterical, or mentally ill is a good way to convince other people that maybe you have the stronger argument by default, but it is not the honorable way to "win", and should not be tolerated. This, I'm assuming, is a big part of the reason why he has recently found himself at RfC and now ArbCom. The biggest problem with Asgardian is that he has essentially been allowed to develop into this by not having been put through all of this sooner. I'm not saying that was intentional on anyone else's part, or that we were at all responsible for "creating this monster", but blocking him and protecting articles has been completely useless for anything other than delaying continued problems, as I'm sure you would agree. You tried to file an RfC/U on him a year before I did; I wish that had been successful, but it failed because of a techincality - instead we got another year of more of the same. Really, someone should have tried an RfC even before you did; maybe if this had all been brought to light in the public eye back in 2007, he would either have realized his limits by now, or pushed them to the point where he would not be welcomed back. Instead, things have continued to escalate.

I have to admit, as much as you may want me to be, I am not convinced that he needs to be banned completely. Maybe I am too much of an optimist, thinking that people can change if given the right motivation, and maybe that is a personal flaw of mine. Maybe it's a strength, but that is a subjective question which will be answered differently by every individual. I do have to agree that there are serious issues at play regarding the behaviors you mention, and they should not be allowed to continue, which is something I think we all hope ArbCom will address sufficiently. I have said my peace on one possible solution, and I will step back from that and try to say no more, focusing only on presenting and affirming the evidence at hand, and we will all let ArbCom decide what to do with him based on the arguments presented. BOZ (talk) 04:57, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, yeah, I should have. That much is obvious now. :-) Prior to your statement, I thought we were on the same page. If anything, it is I should apologize for possibly misrepresenting you.

What more is there to be done at the RfC?

I don't think he shapes up either because he is either genuinely blind to the nature of his behavior, or because he is emboldened by people like you who enable him. After everything he's done, he might see you saying that you acknowledge his behavior, but no it's too soon ,but no, I don't have a specific timeline--wait, how about March-April, etc., and conclude that he's getting away with this, because let's face it, he has. Even if you had March-April in mind, and my misreading of your position stepped things up a bit--so what? The pattern has continued, so again, what more do you need? You admit that his attacking his opponents on Beyonce is wrong (and no, this does not show a stronger argument--the one with the reasoning/evidence that illustrates it does), but you continue to show ambiguity on this: You say that you will only push for stiffer restrictions if ArbCom agrees with me--what, can't you push for them now by saying as much at the ArbCom yourself if you agree me?

As far as banning, I wouldn't mind if they gave him a chance in a year to come back, but only if he freely acknowledged the improper behavior, answered questions about them directly, and made it clear that he would abandon this sort of thing once and for all. Barring that, Wikipedia would do fine with him, just as it will continue if and when each of the rest of us shuffles off. Nightscream (talk) 06:46, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Hey - ambiguous and vague is my specialty. ;) Now that we are at ArbCom, there is nothing else to be done at the RfC (although it is still open for anyone who would like to comment further). Someone could have proposed a remedy which all parties, including Asgardian, could agree to, but nothing was proposed. So it currently stands as is, a record of the complaints against him, and his response, viewable by all - which is fine.

It doesn't matter anymore if I thought it was "too soon" to do an ArbCom request - it's not like we can take it back (or that it would be at all wise to do so). :) Having gotten the ball rolling though, I do feel now that it is the right thing to do, although I was significanlty unsure of this initially. Maybe it was necessary to jump right in, maybe because the RfC was so long in coming and achieved no significant change, I don't know. My pondering at the timing, after all, is only rhetorical and doesn't change anything. I wasn't going to lead an ArbCom case (and only really wanted a small part, if any) and wasn't thinking of doing much more than making suggestions to interested parties - really, I still don't seek any specific sanctions at this point, and leave that up to others to decide. I didn't even want a part in this one, but since you invited me I felt obliged to say yes.

Anyway, enough of this circle dance. ;) What more do you think we need to do right now? What further steps need to be taken so things can progress? Tenebrae posted his statement on the evidence page, and nothing has happened since then. Are we supposed to do something else, or just wait? BOZ (talk) 12:52, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Asgardian RfC

BOZ, I've asked Emperor, Peregrine Fisher and Jc37 if they wish to weigh in, or move their draft page comments to the live page (as I noticed you have yourself). I don't know if they're planning to, but I wanted to give them an opportunity before the process moves forward. Asgardian is now claiming that others have lost interest in the process, saying that they have "moved on" and that one has "dropped from view". I don't know that there is any truth to this claim, but if you think there is, let me know.

It seems clear that Asgardian has no intention of changing his behavior, or even admitting that he has a problem (as indicated by both his responses on the RfC page and to my posts on its Talk Page), and I think it's time that we discussed a resolution to this problem. Since he is unwilling to respond directly and honestly to the charges leveled against him, I believe it is time that he is indefinitely blocked from Wikipedia. I don't know that a permanent ban is necessary, since I like to think that everyone is capable of change, and it's possible that given enough time away from Wikipedia, he may come around, but for now, his editing privileges need to be taken away, and not for some brief period of time. Let me know what you think. Nightscream (talk) 04:10, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

It may be time to contact someone more familiar with ArbCom and see what the next step should be? I'm unfamiliar with the process as I have not yet participated in one (and I am not willing to put as much work into such a case at this time as I did with this RFC!) but I would be willing to add my fair share of help, depending on what is to be done. First I'd give the three you mentioned (I know Hiding was also interested, but he has become scarce) a chance to see if they are finally going to weigh in, and then we can open a discussion with any interested parties. BOZ (talk) 04:36, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Hey, BOZ. I think you might like to read what has been said here [10] as it is fairly telling. As I suspected, someone would appear to have a personal issue and it is coming out in their language. I really hope that this will not go further, as aside from the work it creates it may become very embarrassing for said editor, and I have no wish to be presenting evidence that humiliates anyone. As to the original RfC, I've made my case. You can also view Scott Free's latest comment. By the by, things have also gone very quiet now that a certain someone has dropped from sight. No edit wars or flaming. Food for thought.

Regards Asgardian (talk) 07:35, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Hello, BOZ. You have new messages at Jinnai's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Re: G.I. Joe video game

Added a cover and a few little bits. Salavat (talk) 05:51, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Asgardian

Asgardian has recently shown up again at Thor (Marvel Comics) started making some not only substantial but factually erroneous edits. I am afraid this might lead to an edit war so I am letting you now so this situation can be monitored. -TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:56, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Gygax: Longbio

Apologies if this isn't the right way to try to contact you. I'm a grad student researching connections between radio drama and D&D. I saw on the Gary Gygax discussion page that you have a copy the longbio referenced there. I congratulate your integrity in not posting that in its entirety, but was hoping you could help me out on a point. You mentioned that the longbio talks about radio shows EGG listened to. Any chance you would be willing to either communicate which shows he mentioned, or even possibly send me a quotation? If it would help to verify my status as a researcher, I would be more than happy to do so. -numenetics (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:34, 2 February 2010 (UTC).

No problem! Let me know how your research goes. In Gary's words:

I was fortunate to have no television in my youth, so radio and imagination were there to assist my creativity. Some of my favorite programs were:

• Smiling Ed McConnel
• Tennessee Jed
• The Lone Ranger
• The Green Hornet
• Gangbusters
• The FBI in Peace and War
• Mr. and Mrs. North
• Lights Out
• Escape
• The Hermit
• The Whistler
• The Hall of Fantasy
• Dimension X
• Sam Spade
• So the Story Goes
• The Passing Parade
• Calling all Detectives

…and

• The Transcribed Gold Coast show
• The Arbogast Show
• The Spider Webb (R&B music) show

Any music program broadcast in c. 1954 from station WLAC in Nashville, especially those hosted by Gene Nobles and Herman Guisarde (spelling?)

BOZ (talk) 23:20, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Incubate please

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tim_McAuliffe&action=edit&redlink=1 to Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Tim_McAuliffe

thank you. Okip (formerly Ikip) 01:07, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I say Ikip, you say Okip?  ;) BOZ (talk) 02:51, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Arbitration case

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Asgardian/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Asgardian/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 03:48, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! BOZ (talk) 04:01, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by this question. Are you now saying that you wish to see him banned, and wish to participate in that effort? Nightscream (talk) 18:22, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Involved parties are expected to post their evidence on the evidence page, within a week, if possible, as AlexandrDmitri stated above. I'm still writing and editing mine now.

But again, what is it you wish to do? Are you asking because you intend to argue against banning, or for it? I thought you were neutral on the point...? Nightscream (talk) 18:40, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

As a question of intent, presenting evidence is not separate from the outcome. The desired outcome was named by me when first requesting the case be opened, so it bears relevance on my question, what is it you wish to do--that is, what is it you hope you accomplish from presenting your evidence. When you say you want to see if you have anything to add in the way of evidence, the question becomes, evidence of what. Tenebrae and I know what we're presenting evidence of. Because you continue to waffle, I'm not clear on what that is in your case. Again, I don't see why you are so married to March-April, and so opposed to a slight modification to this utopian timetable (a modification of, at the low end, one week), that you refuse to either consider banning, or name what this "restriction" is. Nightscream (talk) 22:10, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I never said anything about this being "my" decision, or about who determines his fate, or about "which" evidence you present, or your level of involvement. I merely asked, pursuant to your question to me about presenting evidence, that I didn't understand what it was that you felt you were presenting evidence of. The other things in your message to me are those that I never brought up. Of course you can participate for whatever purpose you wish. But since you were asking me what you're supposed to do now, expressing confusion as to what you expect to get out of the arbitration, particularly given your refusal to take a stand with Asgardian, the question I asked was valid--"what is it you wish to do?"--was valid. Nightscream (talk) 16:04, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Barbecue (G.I. Joe)

I have nominated Barbecue (G.I. Joe), an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barbecue (G.I. Joe). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Ridernyc (talk) 12:51, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Good luck with the arbitration

RE: [11]

Good luck :) Okip 03:55, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Proposal

Hi, BOZ. Heaven knows, I understand your frustration. The process is slow, but I believe in the end productive, and I here have something that I think might help.

I don't believe "either/or" is the only answer. That is why, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Asgardian/Evidence, I've added this proposed solution, to which I hope other editors can sign on.

His fellow editors need a "probation officer" admin to whom they can turn, who has veto power over Asgardian's disputed edits and unilateral changes to Project MOS. In addition, we need a reinstatement of the probation he was under in, I believe, 2008, in which he could make only one rv (either via "Undo" or by a multitude of edits essentially comprising an rv) a day. That last probation lasted a year; as his behavior did not change, bringing us to this point, this probation reinstatement should last two years. Given that at least one other editor is calling for a ban, this probation seems a less drastic and more productive solution.

--Tenebrae (talk) 17:23, 25 February 2010 (UTC)