User:BOZ/RFCU Asgardian draft
In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: ~~~~), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 10:21, 3 November 2024 (UTC).
Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.
Statement of the dispute
This is a summary written by users who dispute this user's conduct. Users signing other sections ("Response" or "Outside views") should not edit the "Statement of the dispute" section.
Asgardian is an editor who is knowledgeable in his primary field of focus, comic books, and has shown the ability to research and work hard to write and improve articles. In that sense, he is valuable to the Comics Wikiproject and Wikipedia as a whole. However, a number of editors have found it difficult and frustrating to work with him on the articles he chooses to volunteer his time at, for a variety of reasons detailed below. Some of the editors of the Comics Wikiproject, and editors who work on comic book related articles, feel that certain aspects of Asgardian's approach are disruptive.
Desired outcome
This is a summary written by users who have initiated the request for comment. It should spell out exactly what the changes they'd like to see in the user, or what questions of behavior should be the focus.
We would like to see Asgardian work with a more collaborative and less controlling spirit. If that does not happen, then perhaps mediation may be in order; if that does not work, then editors may need to seek sanctions through arbitration. As Tenebrae puts things, "we see hope and potential in Asgardian and are genuinely trying to work with him to encourage the better angels of his nature".
Description
{Add summary here, but you must use the section below to certify or endorse it. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries, other than to endorse them.}
Disclaimer: Much of the behavior described below may describe not only Asgardian but sometimes other editors involved in disputes with him as well, in "it takes two to tango" situations. Often enough, it is not black and what, as Asgardian is not the "bad guy" while the other editor is not the "good guy" –those roles are not always so easily defined. However, given the sheer number of disputes that Asgardian has been involved in over the past few years with multiple editors, it is very concerning that he seems to be the common denominator.
Asgardian has been accused of taking ownership of certain articles. That is, once he begins to clean up an article in a manner he finds satisfactory, he leaves other editors feeling that he will only "allow" changes that he agrees with. Asgardian denies this practice, however, feeling that the version of the article he promotes is the "correct" (sometimes posited as "wiki-correct") version. He has made statements such as "this article is almost complete", which have been read as him thinking he is the only one to judge how an article should look, rather than him being one collaborator amongst the whole. He and another editor have recently been page banned from two articles (Abomination (comics) and Rhino (comics)) for a month period.
Asgardian is often involved in what appears to be edit-warring with other editors. As seen in the evidence below, he will undo someone else's changes when he disagrees with changes that have been made, which is only acceptable to a degree under the provisions of WP:BRD. Asgardian feels that he is not edit-warring, because either his changes do not comprise a true revert (such as reverting to his prior preferred version, but making some other changes as well), or because he feels the other person was wrong in the first place. While neither of these actions are wrong per se, they will often occur multiple times in succession on the same article, and often over a period of time. Numerous examples can be found by examining patterns in the edit histories of articles such as Juggernaut (comics), Galactus, Dormammu, and Mephisto (comics).
Asgardian often uses incomplete or inaccurate edit summaries to describe his changes. That is, he will use no summary at all, or a brief edit summary that describes only a small portion of the changes he is making, while the rest of his edit will make significant changes to the article – often reverting parts of the text that other editor(s) have made. Asgardian also makes comments, sometimes negative in tone, about other editors in his edit summaries.
It has been suggested that Asgardian has gamed the system at times. For example, Asgardian will sometimes enter into a discussion with the aggrieved editors he is engaged with, but even after discussion he will sometimes resume with the prior behavior on at least part of the article when it appears the disagreeable editor may have lost interest in continuing the debate. Sometimes when he interprets policies and guidelines in his own way and acts upon them, he discards input from other editors. Sometimes he is warned to disengage from a certain activity and will try to find a way around the warning to continue doing as he wishes.
When a consensus seems to have formed regarding a certain approach towards a style guideline, editing practice, etc, or perhaps what is to be done in a specific case on one article, Asgardian has been said to act against that consensus. That is, if say a few editors on an article's talk page have agreed that this article should contain "Foo", Asgardian has been observed to remove "Foo" regardless (or remove it when others agree to keep it, or what have you).
Sometimes Asgardian will edit anonymously, making the same sort of edits he does to the same articles he has been observed to work on, and continuing the same behaviors as described above. When questioned about this, Asgardian states that this anonymous editing is not intentional, and that his computer timed out and logged him out. He has used one known alternate account, User:Obsidianblackboard, to continue editing when he was temporarily blocked.
Asgardian has removed maintenance templates numerous times, claiming that they are not needed despite other editors claiming that the issues have not been resolved. When another editor places the templates back on, he will often remove them again, sometimes along with a significant edit to the rest of the article and often with an incomplete edit summary.
In one particularly contentious instance, Asgardian admitted that he "deliberately wrote an article (Abomination) in the in-sentence style and it becomes dry, didactic and hard to read." In this case, the article in question was rewritten by Asgardian in a style that was protested against by multiple editors (including myself), and the above admission has been viewed as indicating that he was deliberately editing against consensus to prove a WP:POINT.
Evidence of disputed behavior
(Provide diffs. Links to entire articles aren't helpful unless the editor created the entire article. Edit histories also aren't helpful as they change as new edits are performed.)
- Edit warring (both full reverts and partial reverts): [1], [2], and [3] at Awesome Android; [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], and [10] at Dormammu; [11], [12], [13], [14], [15] on Red Hulk
- Incomplete/inaccurate edit summaries: [16] (logs in to revert the bot's reversions of his edits as an IP), [17], [18], [19]
- Reverting to "Wiki-correct version": [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25]
- Removal of maintenance tags as part of a larger edit: [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31]
- Alleged ownership claims: [32] ("article is almost complete"), [33] ("It took hours to complete Abomination, and Rhino was in fact almost finished"), [34] ("one article as finished and supported by others and the other was one session from being completed")
- Apparent incivility towards other users: [35], [36], [37], [38]
- Please note that this page contains additional testominials which may be helpful to review; far more content than could be reasonably copied to the RFC page
Applicable policies and guidelines
{list the policies and guidelines that apply to the disputed conduct}
Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute
(provide diffs and links)
Users certifying the basis for this dispute
{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}
Other users who endorse this summary
Response
This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete. Users signing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Outside Views") should not edit the "Response" section.
{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}
Users who endorse this summary:
Outside view
This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.
{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}
Users who endorse this summary:
Discussion
All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.