Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics/Request for comment/Asgardian

message: :The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it.  No further edits should be made to this page.  
A summary of the debate may be found at the bottom of the page.
----
; Request for Comment: User:Asgardian
This is a dispute about content in a myriad of comics-related articles involving User:Asgardian, User:Tenebrae, and others. I'm going to attempt to stay neutral to the discussion.
Note: Such discussions in the past have devolved into personal attacks and other forms of incivility. I strongly suggest that Wikiquette be followed here. - jc37 13:47, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

message: Add statements below.
* Continuous, dogged contention on a large number of WPC articles, often in defiance of WPC guidelines. On such articles as Galactus, Blood Brothers (comics), and Awesome Android, to name a bare few, he consistently edit-wars, refuses to use WPC formatting unless forced -- and then weeks later goes back and reverts to non-standard formatting -- nitpicks incessantly, and makes for an ugly, exasperating, frustrating atmosphere for a large number of us other volunteer editors. Many of us have tried so hard, on so many occasions, to work with him, only to be accused of being patronizing and all sorts of things. He blanks his Talk page to hide the times he's been reprimanded and blocked, and tests the goodwill of fellow editors to no end. He is combative and defensive, and in the final analysis cannot get along with other editors. It has finally reached a point where many of us believe something of a permanent nature must be done. It is not right that he forces so many us into pointless, time-consuming fights so, so, so very often. -- Tenebrae 14:08, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: While he does do some good things, and, as others have commented, he does know his Marvel in universe stuff, how that information is being shared leaves a lot to be desired. It comes across as if these are his articles, and that his action should be all the explanation needed. No willingness to actually abide by consensus, be it generated on an articles talk page, a project level discussion, or a general Wiki guide or principle. No willingness to explain why a point of information is wrong. And no willingness to work in chunks, preferring massive, done-in-one-go revamps that may have one or two changes of many addressed in an ES. It's frustrating to no end, especially to watch him blithely continue doing it even when he's called on it. - J Greb 08:54, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Unfortunately, in the past few days, the useless edit wars have escalated. He's been reverting the SHB image of Mephisto (comics), ignoring and not participating in the dicussion of this on the talk page. He's submarining changes on Mjolnir (comics) by not mentioning them in the edit summary. Previously, he seemed to be willing to work things out in the RfCs for Whizzer and Vision (comics). However, he is now undoing the results of the closed RfC for Whizzer. Will we have to do an RfC for every article he edits? That would be tedious. And pointless, too, if he won't abide by the consensus. He has made many valueable contributions, but his WP:OWN issues are preventing him from getting along with others, and consequently more time is spent fighting than contributing. --GentlemanGhost 03:52, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statements by editors previously involved in dispute 

message: : Just by the by, Ipstenu raised an excellent point. Wikipedia states "be bold in your edits" and yet that sometimes that seems to be counter-productive. Seems to be a tad grey. - Asgardian 01:12, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The 'problem' is that being bold gets used as a defense for 'I'm right, you're wrong, and I'm going to be bold and do it anyway!' when ... that wasn't the idea at all.  Being bold is, in a nutshell If an article's broken, fix it.  Now, let's all define 'broken'.  ;) Mind you, I'm not really on either side here. I've noticed Asgardian being a bit too heavy handed for my liking and making reverts/changes without (IMO) proper justification or decent explanation. But banning? Way over-kill.  Asgardian would you be willing to explain your edits more?  Be not less bold, but make fewer changes to an article at once? Like if you want to change an image, just change the image - don't change it and make 10 other 'small' edits?  Totally my opinion, but I think it would lend itself to some teamwork :)  Show good faith and all :) -- Ipstenu (talk • contribs) 02:18, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Be Bold (but not reckless) 

message: Vision (comics) had an edit summary indicating an incorrect fact was fixed. Far, far more then that was done, including, oddly enough, removal of material such as Amalgam information. Lots42 09:50, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Some of the Amalgam information is incorrect. Someone seems to be making a game of "making up" characters without citing an issue. 
Asgardian 22:54, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Not the Amgalgam information that is currently there for Vision. It's in fact true. I found this by, nudge, nudge, googling (I will attempt to add a reference after this). Also, even -apart- from the Amalgam info, the edit summary was entirely misleading. Lots42 23:48, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another Misleading Summary