Jump to content

User:Nightscream/2010 Asgardian Arbitration Data Index

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following is a list showing the editing tenure of the Administrators and other Editors who wrote or endorsed a summary, or otherwise affirmed problems with User:Asgardian on either the December 2009-February 2010 Asgardian RfC page or its Draft Page, or agreed on its Talk Page that his behavior is problematic, in response to Asgardian’s assertion that the evidence presented there was offered mainly largely by inexperienced or less experienced editors. Also included is a list of editors who disagreed with him in a recent Talk:Beyonce Knowles discussion, pursuant to a similar assertion Asgardian made about them.

The lists are preceded by a list of quotes that establish the assertion made by Asgardian and Scott Free. The first quote is by Scott Free. All the rest are by Asgardian.

Quotes

[edit]

From the Dec 2009/Feb 2010 RfC page
The following comment by Scott Free refers to Asgardian's edit dispute with DrBat on Rhino and Abomination.

"I briefly checked out a couple of articles, I think the Rhino & Abomination - and basically, it looks to me that Asgardian is doing decent work and has gotten into some disagreements with mainly less experienced users"

The following quotes by Asgardian refer to Ghidorah, DrBat or Dream Focus.

"Reverting to "Wiki-correct version" - what is the point of listing this statement? I randomly clicked on three of the examples, and all they demonstrate are my attempts to try and communicate with inexperienced editors and explain how things are done - in this case the editors are Ghidorah and DrBat. Blind reverts and insults (eg. being called a "troll") from them, as opposed to my constructive comments in the Edit Summaries. A thank you for my patience would seem to be more order.
"My comments to inexperienced editors have changed considerably, as evidenced here: 67."
"I actually don't know why Secret Wars is even mentioned. It seems to have be listed to build an argument but doesn't prove anything. Editor Dream Focus meant well, but to judge from the language used is inexperienced..."

The following quotes by Asgardian refer either all or most of the editors who wrote or endorsed summaries on the RfC, or have had disputes with Asgardian in the past.

"BOZ also stated that "...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." On the surface, that would appear to be the case, but the comment does not show that dozens of my edits pass unchallenged, and this is usually only the more inexperienced editors that have difficulty coming to terms with my contributions."
"With all due respect to BOZ, the offered proof shows a degree of inexperience."
"BOZ, despite adding his signature (to what is a subjective list made up of largely well-meaning but fairly inexperienced editors..."

From the February 2010 Arbitration case page:

“The RFC also shows examples of some of the issues I have had to deal with in regards to some of the more inexperienced editors.”
“Unfortunately, Nightscream's assertion that there are "18 long-tenured editors who wrote or endorsed summaries against him (8 of which are administrators)" actually doesn't paint the whole picture. Many of these editors are very inexperienced and/or have been cautioned or blocked…”

Editor/Administrator tenure, edit count and block record

[edit]

As listed here, the only editors for whom Asgardian's dismissal applies, at least in terms of edit count (as of February 25), are Ghidorah and Wikikaye. Dream Focus has been editing for two months longer than Asgardian, and has approximately 2,500 fewer edits. Despite the problems that Asgardian and others may have had with DrBat's alternate accounts or sockpuppets (I do not know which it is, since I' not privy to the details of that matter), experience is not one of them, as DrBat tenure and edit count dwarfs Asgardian's. The only other editors commenting here who have a smaller edit count are David A and Dayewalker. Of those two, David A has been editing longer, and has 170 fewer edits than Asgardian. Dayewalker has just over a thousand less.

The remaining commenting editors number 13, all of whom have been editing here before Asgardian, and whose edit counts dwarf Asgardian's, eight of whom are administrators.

Asgardian's assertion about experience, therefore, is demonstrably untrue as a question of documented fact.

As far as his remark about blocks, while it is true that a couple of the editors listed here have a considerable number of blocks, most of those who do have only one or two stemming from incidents when they were newbies (such as myself), or in the case of Tenebrae, a self-requested block he asked for in order to better concentrate on his non-Wikipedia work. Another has had seven blocks. One has the same number as Asgardian, tying him for the second highest number, and only one other on the list has more than these two. The vast majority have few or no blocks, including the eight administrators, of whom only two have any at all—myself and J Greb, each of whom have 1.



Tenure of editors who disagreed with Asgardian in the February 2010 Talk:Beyonce Knowles discussion

[edit]

Pursuant to Asgardian’s Arbitration statement on the Arbitration case page: “A lession I've just learned when dealing with inexperienced editors who are more fans than "Wiki scholars", such as at Beyonce Knowles, where several editors backed a poorly worded paragraph with the wrong focus and made a few threats”, this list of those editors who disagreed with Asgardian on that page:

Once again, Asgardian’s condescending comments are not only irrelevant to the issue of content and policy, but untrue.

February 2010 Asgardian-Off2riorob Edit Warring on Beyonce Knowles

[edit]

The following list shows the reverts by User:Asgardian and User:Off2riorob between February 5 and February 15, 2010 on the Beyonce Knowles article, pursuant to Asgardian's February 26 claim that he has not edit warred recently. These reverts were made while a discussion was in progress on that article's talk page from February 6 - 19, rather than after that discussion was concluded, as required by policies/guidelines pertaining to collaboration and edit disputes.

Evidence presented by User:Nightscream

[edit]

For the past three and a half years, Asgardian has been observed by many editors to persistently violate numerous policies such as WP:OWN, WP:WAR, WP:ES, WP:CONSENSUS, WP:EDSUM, WP:SOCK, WP:POINT, WP:CIVIL and WP:APR. These are covered by the numerous AN/I threads centering on him, his block log of 12 unreversed blocks by 7 different administrators, his past Requests for Comment and Arbitrations, including the recent RfC, in which 18 different editors, including 8 administrators, wrote or endorsed summaries documenting this. I will place particular focus on the WP:GAME behavior that he exhibits in such disputes, which shows that his single-minded pursuit of his own agenda makes a long-term resolution of this problem impossible. Asgardian insists on the case page that he’s “changed”, and that he “apologizes” for things he said in 2007-2008. But the evidence shows this is untrue, as his serial policy violations and uncivil, dishonest behavior include those from the recent RfC, his edit disputes since then, and even these arbitration pages.

I apologize for the length of this summary, but it is my firm belief, after years of dealing with Asgardian, the only way to accurate examine his behavior is with a level of detail and directness in not only showing diffs illustrating his behavior, but in providing the reasoning and counterreasoning that refutes his deceptive arguments. All things being equal, I would’ve hoped that this would not be necessary, since I would assume that people such as the arbitrators here would be able to immediately discern the logical fallacies and Astroturf Logic that Asgardian employs, but because so many other editors and administrators appear to have failed to see Asgardian's rhetorical tricks for what they are, I feel that this is necessary, to insure that there isn’t a watering down of information here, whereby commentators may be tempted to look to Asgardian, and then his opponents, and conclude, as some have, that they’re equally culpable. Please read the entire summary carefully, as the issue cannot without examining all the information in detail.

1. Stonewalling

[edit]

Asgardian routinely stonewalls when people attempt to discuss things with him, or when his statements are refuted, and even when he participates in discussion, he continues to revert articles. While there may come a time when participants in a discussion have grown tired of it or exhausted their arguments, a look at Asgardian’s pattern shows this is not the case with him, as he consistently evades questions to which direct and honest answers would reveal the falsity of his positions. On the recent RfC Talk Page, for example, I quoted six passages from Asgardian’s response to the case page summaries, and refuted them, showing they did not hold up under the scrutiny of fact or logic. I followed up by posing six questions to him that I challenged him to answer, in order to refute my counterarguments. He refused to respond to them, calling them “allegations”. In fact, they were not allegations, but questions that challenged his previous statements. When another editor, Tainted Conformity, opined that dodging such questions was not a good idea, Asgardian, who continued to post on that talk page, refused to respond to him on that point. Yet Asgardian insists on both the case page and evidence page that he has changed, and now collaborates with others. If this is true, how does he explain this?

Subsequent to this, in early February, I tried to engage Asgardian in a discussion over his change to a section heading title in the Thor article, since such things have been the topic of lengthy WikiComics Project discussions. He offered one response to me, saying, “Well, the Guidelines are just that, guidelines”, but after I continued with follow-up messages, as did Tenebrae, explaining the purpose of guidelines, Asgardian said nothing beyond that, and then blanked our messages from his Talk Page, with the familiar edit summary “Tidied up”. Subsequently, I tried to engage him again, this time over his changing the “References” section in that article to a “Notes” section. While both are allowable, as he pointed out, “References” is the more common choice, and I wanted to discuss with him the issue of consistency. He again offered one response, and after I continued to leave messages, he no longer responded to me, again blanking his talk page. Again, this is collaboration?

Contrast this with his complaints during the RfC about “lack of communication” or “no attempts to communicate” from others during past edit disputes, or his complaint in a recent Beyonce Knowles dispute that User:Off2riorob “didn’t respond to any of his points”.

Apart from his stonewalling, Asgardian continues to edit war, even though he says on the evidence page that he has not recently done this. A look at the Beyonce Knowles edit history from February 5 to February 15 shows him and Off2riorob edit warring, even while they were participating in discussion on that article’s talk page. This itemized list of Diff links shows the reverts by the two of them, each one complete with date and quoted edit summary.

Asgardian was also given this 3RR caution on his Talk Page on February 12, which is pretty recent.

2. Use of non sequiturs in response to criticism

[edit]
  • Asgardian points examples of appropriate behavior on his part, including properly following policy or collaboration with others. But no one has ever accused him of never following policy. The issue is whether there are enough occurrences of him violating it for there to be a problem, which is indeed the case. The fact that he may do good work in between all his instances of violating policy does not exonerate him for those violations. A similar tactic of his is to point to infractions on the part of other people, as if this has the same “canceling out” effect, as when he responded to the charge of incomplete or inaccurate edit summaries on the RfC case page by saying, “again, where is the offence? What is so damning about my edits as opposed to the thousands of other daily edits, many of which involve vandalism?” In Asgardian’s mind, rather than refute the assertion that he writes deceptive edit summaries (which his record shows that he does do), the fact that other edits are worse means that this violation on his part is in some way moot. This is false.
  • Asgardian has argued that his edits are “not outrageous”. Again, Asgardian is not accused of making “outrageous” edits. He is accused of violating a myriad of policies, which the evidence shows he has. In order to falsify the assertions made against, he needs to invalidate the evidence marshaled against him, not address accusations that no one has made.
  • Asgardian often dismisses criticism because it is “subjective” or “opinion”. This argument ignores the fact that much of what is stated in disputes on Wikipedia, and for that matter, in life, is opinion. Does Asgardian contend the only valid statements are those of fact, and that by extension, the only statements he makes in disputes are facts? The true criterion by which any idea or argument is vetted is whether the evidence and reasoning offered for it is valid. In order to falsify a given argument, one must invalidate that evidence or reasoning, or otherwise show how it does not lead to the conclusion in question. Asgardian must certainly know this, and he must know that denouncing a conclusion because it's an "opinion" is a fallacy. As for subjectivity, this is why we have consensus discussions. When multiple participants in a dispute voice their viewpoints, and a preponderance of opinion forms upon a given side in a dispute, the subjective nature of that side’s position is attenuated. This may not make the issue one of fact, but it does allow a community to form a consensus on what’s reasonable. Again, should we conclude from Asgardian’s words that he disputes this? Should understand that when he claims his edits are “not outrageous”, that criticism smacks of a “grudge”, that he is a “Wiki scholar” and all others are fans—that these are not his opinions, and are not subjective? When he interpreted the closure of the recent RfC weeks before it actually occurred, perceiving the other editors to have moved on from it, even though they continued to post it, was that not “subjective”? He even once complained that the blocks imposed on him were “subjective blocks”—whatever that means. Asgardian has even used this assertion when factual evidence has been provided against him. In this section of his 2007 RfC, numerous editors showed how Asgardian engaged in blind reverts and the use of deliberately deceptive edit summaries, User:Tenebrae, in an October 25 post, provided a diff in which Asgardian did a blanket revert of an article, but with the edit summary, “Added captions. Still much easier reading.” Asgardian’s responded to this evidence, “One user's opinion does not make anything fact.”, ignoring the fact that the diff in question establishes the accusation as a question of fact, not “opinion”. Even if Asgardian felt that Tenebrae’s evidence did not illustrate what Tenebrae said it did, why not just explain why? Why the haughty, dismissive non sequitur? Instead of invalidating the evidence, Asgardian simply dodges a direct response to it. He again used this “subjective” retort in response to the aforementioned six questions I posed for him on the recent RfC Talk Page.
  • Yet another non sequitur is his remark on the arbitration case page “I don't understand the intensity of Nightscream's claims given that we have not edited together on the same article - Red Hulk - for months”, when none of the things that I have pointed out about his behavior, nor the evidence I provide here, is predicated on us having edited together on the same article. This arbitration is the result of three and a half years of repeated policy violations on his part, including breaches of policies relating to collaboration and discussion that he has engaged in on the recent RfC, the recent Beyonce Knowles matter, and examples of which he provides here in this arbitration. In what way does this have anything to do with use having edited an article together recently?

3. Use of ad hominem arguments and other personal attacks and innuendo

[edit]

Asgardian routinely attempts to misdirect attention from his behavior by responding to critics with personal attacks that bear no relevance to the underlying assertion made against him, often employing the ad hominem tactic of accusing them of being “emotive” or of harboring a personal “grudge” or “obsession”, as well as other forms of vague innuendo, in violation of WP:APR. Proper behavior duing a dispute on Wikipedia is described in the pyramid here, with inappropriate behavior described in the green, yellow, and orange portions of the pyramid. The yellow and orange in particular describe much of Asgardian’s behavior during disputes precisely.

On the RfC case page, when it was pointed out that Asgardian continued to revert the Red Hulk article during a consensus discussion (the reason for his last unreversed block), he dismissed this by pointing out that I protected the page while I was involved in the Talk Page discussion. This is misdirection. Putting aside the fact that I only protected it because he was continuing to revert during that discussion, and I wished to prevent him from continuing to do so, when it was pointed out to me that this was inappropriate, I apologized, and the matter was dropped. Asgardian figures that if he points out a genuine error on the part of someone else, that this somehow cancels out his deliberate violation of WP:CONSENSUS, which he refuses to even talk about. This was one of the points I asked him about on RfC talk page, which he refused to talk about. He pays lip service to contriteness on the RfC page that this was one of the instances in which he should've been "smarter", but never says what it was he should have been smarter about. If we assume he was talking about reverting during a discussion, then why did he persistently do this in the aforementioned Beyonce Knowles matter?

After I challenged Asgardian to answer six questions in response to his statements on the RfC talk page, he accused me of harboring a personal grudge, and my questions of being an “over-reaction”, again, without elaborating on this, or falsifying my reasoning. When I pointed out that he was stonewalling, and refuted the specious reasoning in his subsequent comments, he responded with further innuendo, saying, “The length of the response (and the emotive tone) from Nightscream may also tell you something.” When I politely asked him to quote a passage from me that was “emotive”, and he continued to stonewall on even that, apparently feeling that it is acceptable for him to make whatever accusation he wishes, without any obligation to illustrate it. For the record, while all of us are indeed frustrated with Asgardian, nothing in my statements indicates that am driven by emotion rather than logic and reason. Again, contrast this with Asgardian’s complaint to in the Beyonce dispute that Off2riorob’s edit summaries shows that that editor has a a habit of "talking down" to other editors and being “very condescending”. Look through his ANI’s, or other disputes, and see how frequently the word “emotive” appears in his statements about other editors, and the things he points to as supposed evidence of this.

Here’s one example in which he reacts to the opening sentence of a post User:GentlemanGhost’s in a 2007 AN/I discussion about Asgardian, in which GentlemanGhost says, “The members of WikiProject Comics have a thorn in our side and his name is Asgardian.” Asgardian reacts to this by claiming that this remark “is dramatic, emotive and immediately indicates that the poster cannot be objective.” Notice how GentlemanGhost amassed quite a large number of diffs to illustrate Asgardian’s policy violations, but Asgardian claims that the mere use of a creatively written sentence in an AN/I thread is not only “dramatic” and “emotive” (I was not aware being “dramatic” was a violation of policy or guideline), but that it calls into question the writer’s objectivity. This is over-reaching, to put it mildly. It shows how Asgardian is so hyper-sensitized to the mere act of being called to answer for his violations of policy, that he attacks other editors ad hominem, despite the fact that the diffs Gentleman Ghost posted included ones in which Asgardian characterized others as “dumb”, was condescending to them, referred to another’s edit as a “fiasco”, and so forth.

As for the accusation of a "personal grudge", putting aside the ad hominem nature of this argument, the record will not only show that I do not hold grudges against editors with whom I have had past disputes, but that Asgardian contradicts himself by providing evidence to support this.

  • More recently, I was in a dispute with User:Contaldo80, who insisted or referring to Martin Ssempa as a “bastard” in his article because he was born to a single mother, and who rejected my reasoning that that word has a pejorative usage that is more common that its technically correct one, and that this would also be redundant, since he was adding this word to a sentence that already mentioned his single mother. He also reacted to my administrative warnings by calling them “threats”. A Third Opinion supported my position, and subsequently, Contaldo apologized to me for being “a real idiot” over the matter. I responded by simply saying, “Don't sweat it. Happens to the best of us. :-)”. Does this sound like someone who holds grudges?
  • Lastly on this point, consider my interactions when others have had disputes with Asgardian. When User:David A asked me in December 2008 regarding problems he was having with Asgardian, I responded to David A that he had not illustrated any behavior on Asgardian's part that I could see that violated policy (although I did change the section heading on David A’s talk page, as the one Asgardian chose was incivil). In April 2009, I attempted to mediate a dispute between Asgardian and David A, and in the process, I counseled David not to respond with incivility to Asgardian, and later gave an admonishment to him and TheBalance to the same effect. Asgardian later asked me for help with David A in June 2009 (which would be odd if he thought I had a grudge against him). And just recently, I intervened in the recent Talk:Beyonce Knowles dispute between Asgardian and User:Off2riorob, in which I agreed with Asgardian on all of this points (He unfortunately resorted to some of the same personal tactics mentioned here, but I did not mention this on that page.) And February 17, I cautioned an editor for vandalizing Asgardian’s Talk Page. This is a grudge? How? Asgardian himself pointed out this incident on the case page, saying, "What makes this even more bizarre is that Nightscream actually supported me just days ago on an edit at Beyonce Knowles; supported me on the relevant Talk Page and then after I thanked him for the support acknowledged the thanks. This then begs the question, why is this request being introduced?" Asgardian seems to be implying that editor interactions have to follow some sort of all-or-nothing pattern, and that if I agree with Agardian in one instance, and then disagree with him in another, that this is some type of contradiction on my part. What he doesn't seem to realize (or hopes others won't) is that this merely demonstrates that I do not suffer from any "grudge", because I indeed have the very objectivity that he often accuses me of lacking.

In light of this, it strains credulity to argue that I hold grudges against him or anyone else, especially when viewed against that fact that he habitually employs these accusations whenever he gets into a dispute with another editor, and without elaborating or it or falsifying the evidence/reasoning offered against him. When User:J Greb pointed out a lie by Asgardian during his 2007 arbitration, providing the diff that illustrated it, Asgardian claimed that J Greb was being “emotive”, without explaining why J Greb’s charge was false. During the a Talk: Beyonce Knowles discussion, Asgardian accused Off2riorob of making “emotive” edit summaries even though I found no evidence of this in the edit history of that talk page or of its parent article.

As aforementioned, when editors provided evidence of Asgardian’s blind reverts and deceptive edit summaries in his 2007 RfC, he responded to the evidence provided by one of them, Tenebrae, by accusing Tenebrae having an “obsession”.

In Asgardian’s 2007 Arbitration, User: J Greb also illustrated Asgardian’s edit summary lies, providing a diff in which Asgardian did a blanket revert of others’ work and called it a "slight tidy". Asgardian responded that this claim was “emotive”, “inflammatory”, and grounds for legal action, but never explained why J Greb’s assertion was false.

And here on this evidence page, Asgardian accuses Tenebrae of holding a personal grudge, which Asgardian illustrates with this link, where Asgardian points out that during Asgardian’s 2007 RfC, Tenebrae began a discussion with an “emotive heading”. The link, however, shows no such thing. The heading, with which Tenebrae responded to Asgardian’s statements, simply reads, “Do not believe Asgardian.” This is emotive? How? Tenebrae’s opinion is that he doesn’t believe Asgardian, and given Asgardian’s history of lying, this is perfectly understandable. Again, Asgardian is observing the reaction of others to his own poor behavior and concludes that the it is the reaction that is the problem, rather than the behavior on his part that is responsible for it. “Emotive” appears to be Asgardian’s euphemisitic code for anything that he doesn’t like to hear.

To see how well Asgardian upholds his own implied standard of complete lack of emotion, consider Asgardian’s assertion in the Additional information section on the arbitration case page that he “actually tried to be the voice of reason between other parties during a hours-long edit war at Galactus (27)” That link is merely to that article’s Edit History, so we don’t know exactly which dif shows him being the “voice of reason”. But in glancing through that history, the first thing that jumped out at me was this edit by Asgardian, in which he says in his edit summary:

That's enough! Minor changes fine; Tyrant to come; overanalysis of quote. No need to mention Strange.

When you consider his serial use of the accusation of emotionalism toward others, as his uncivil comments about imagining other editors, the arbitrary nature of this overused tactic is brought into even higher relief.

Asgardian makes other vague allusions to other editors’ overall editing history and character, with comments like “A hard look at this person's edits over the last month paint a fairly telling picture,” without specifying precisely what edits on my part he was referring to, and what was the “picture” he was talking about. Again, this is a stock, knee-jerk tactic of his. He again engaged in innuendo of this type with Off2riorob during the Beyonce Knowles dispute, again, without specifics. In doing this, Asgardian implies that merely being involved in frequent disputes, without indicating whether the person involved is wrong or is violating policy, in some way lowers that person’s credibility. This is untrue, as editors who edit frequently, especially those who properly uphold policy in the face of those who do not, will understandably get into disputes frequently, through no fault of their own, but of those who are ignorant or derelict in those policies. Asgardian ignores this distinction, implying that anyone in frequent disputes is of lower credibility, but exempts himself from this principle, despite the fact that he himself has been involved in scores of edit disputes, in which numerous administrators have observed him to have violated policy, has been blocked a dozen times for it, and whose Talk Page indicated a number of separate disputes as of February 28.

Asgardian’s made similarly inflammatory toward User:DavidA, including his May 2009 comments about "hosing down" DavidA and another editor, his August 2009 aspersions on how David A’s edit summaries "smack of obsession", and how he thinks DaveA is "unbalanced", "unhinged" and can imagine him "shrieking at the computer". I tried to advise Asgardian that such comments were not appropriate, but Asgardian was not fazed by this. Perhaps Asgardian’s most indefensible violation of WP:APR, despite his insistence on these pages that he’s “changed”, and his “apology” for things he said in 2007-2008, was his bringing up David A’s medical condition just this past January in an AN/I thread, saying “As I have already indicated to J Greb, this user has admitted to having a medical condition - [174].” Although User:David A did previously mention having some medical conditions, he did so in a manner that was relevant to the discussion at the time. By contrast, Asgardian gave no explanation at all as to how this fact was relevant to the January AN/I thread. It was simply a non-contextualized remark, that he dropped in that discussion, used to cast an aspersion on David A. David made it clear that he did not appreciate this, but did Asgardian offer an apology to him? No.

4. Deliberate falsehoods and general dishonesty

[edit]

Although the aforementioned logical fallacies constitute a form of intellectual dishonesty, Asgardian has responded to criticism with a number of falsehoods, at least some of which that, when examined, are difficult to conclude as anything other than deliberate mendacity. Asgardian claimed that I continued to edit the Red Hulk after protecting it, during a consensus discussion. A look through the relevant edit histories will show that the only edit I made to it was one minor edit, in which I added information to a citation, which was not part of the disputed portion of the article that we were discussing. I started the Red Hulk Talk Page discussion on August 30, 2009, and it continued (into a second section) until September 3. Asgardian, despite participating in the discussion, did not refrain from editing the disputed portion of the article. Here he not only reverts on September 2, but does so blindly, as his use of the “Undo” feature undid not only the disputed portion of the article, but also ended up removing a ref name tag that I had to subsequently restore. Because of this, I had no other choice but to protect the page, not to push my version of it (I didn’t have to, since most of the other editors on the Talk Page agreed with most aspects of the version I favored), but to prevent editing of the disputed portions during the discussion by Asgardian—the precise reason for his last upheld block. The only edit I made to the article is here, which was to add information to a citation, which was not part of the edit dispute discussion. (I later apologized when I was informed that my protection of it was inappropriate.) So for Asgardian to accuse me of editing the article after protecting it, when it was a minor edit not connected to the dispute—while simultaneously refusing, as he does to this day, to even acknowledge the fact that he indeed was editing it during the discussion, is a rather hypocritical level of dishonesty on his part. He subsequently engaged in his trademark penchant for euphemism when he stated, in response to my rationale for protecting the page, “There have been no constant reversions, only improvements.” When one’s “improvements” involve using the “Undo” button to remove another editor’s work, that’s called a reversion. Employing euphemism to call it something else does not change this.

Asgardian claimed that the issue of his removing maintenance tags from articles without addressing the needs underlined by those tags was resolved by he himself, and that User:BOZ said as much. In fact, BOZ said no such thing. BOZ alerted others to when Asgardian found the third party sources that Asgardian himself previously insisted did not exist. That does not constitute a resolution to the policy violation of removing maintenance tags when the underlying needed highlighted by the tag has not been addressed, and BOZ never indicated otherwise. (Search the RfC case page for the phrase “very person” to see this statement by Asgardian. My refutation of it is the third quote-and-response here.)

Asgardian claims that those he has had edit disputes with, and those on the RfC page, are “less experienced” or “inexperienced”. (Search for the word “experience” on the RfC case page, the arbitration case page and this evidence page to see his various references to this.) This falsehood is the easiest one to measure objectively as a question of fact, and the easiest to conclude as a knowing lie rather than as an error, as detailed by this list here, which shows that most of those who wrote or edited summaries on the arbitration pages have edit counts that dwarf Asgardian’s, and longer tenures. After I mentioned in my statment on the case page that I would show this in my evidence, Asgardian replied by repeating the lie, and compounding it even further by claiming, “Many of these editors are very inexperienced and/or have been cautioned or blocked…” The truth, as the aforementioned link shows, is that Asgardian has one of the highest number of past blocks of all the editors listed, as he is tied for the second-highest number on that list, with twelve. Again, this is an ad hominem argument, and an example of Asgardian’s hypocrisy. Merely having blocks, in and of itself, in some way invalidates the fact that 18 or so people all converge on the same view that Asgardian has a problem, despite the fact that Asgardian has more blocks than almost all of them? User:Scott Free, whose apparently supportive RfC comments Asgardian holds up as a vindication (see below for more on this point), also has more than one past block, and his edits have been discussed at AN/I before. Does this mean those who disagree with Asgardian or Scott Free can employ the same argument? This helps bring into relief the fact that this is just a propaganda tactic on Asgardian’s part, and does not provide any substantial confirmation or refutation of the arguments or evidence against him. Asgardian also once dismissed the observation that so many editors develop problems with him as merely one editor’s “opinion”.

The notion of greater experience may have first been suggested to Asgardian by User:Scott Free, whose comments on the recent RfC case page are apparently far more supportive of Asgardian than most of the others. But what Asgardian conveniently omits from his now-frequent citation of this notion is that Scott Free posted his summary before most of the other editors posted theirs, which means Scott Free read none of the evidence that they presented when he wrote his. Only one editor, User:BOZ, posted evidence upon which Scott Free based his summary, and according to Scott himself, the only explicit indication he made as to what evidence he examined was, “I briefly checked out a couple of articles, I think the Rhino & Abomination…” Scott did not read the summaries by myself, User:Emperor, User:David A, User:Wikikaye, User:J Greb and User:Doczilla that were posted subsequently, nor make any indication later that he did so. He indicated that he merely “checked out a couple of articles” that Asgardian worked on. It is not surprising, therefore, that his conclusions (“Try to avoid doing blow-by-blow reversions behind his edits - wait a while - look a the changes in a larger context”; “ Stop accusing of minute violations”) do not accurately reflect the reality of the situation. It is also not surprising that not a single editor other than Scott endorsed Scott’s summary. Yet Asgardian not only cites his words as somehow being authoritative, but to the exclusion of everyone else’s, which he simply dismisses, and even distorts. User:Cutno and User:WhatamIdoing also made comments that I found to be rather inane, and not surprisingly, theirs are the only other editors whose words Asgardian cites to bolster his viewpoint. I refuted Cutno’s statements on the RfC talk page, and after doing so, Cutno, who did not dispute what I said, replied, “Since this has been going on for awhile, seek Mediation, or go Arbitration.” I also refuted WhatamIdoing’s statements that this situation would’ve been resolved had the participating editors not had a fraught history with Asgardian (since this ignored the three years of evidence and uninvolved editors against him), and WhatamIDoing replied that he was not defending Asgardian, as some of his behavior was “indefensible”. WhatamIdoing explained that he merely commented on the “dysfunction” that prompted my "comments on the contributor, rather than content"—completely ignoring the fact that the RfC was entirely about the contributor (Asgardian), precisely because his behavior has made such discussions unavoidable. Arguing that we should’ve been discussing content implies that the RfC was a content dispute, which it was not.

Perhaps Asgardian’s most egregious mendacity was in trying to single-handedly strongarm the closure of the recent RfC on February 1, by claiming that it was now resolved, that others agreed with him, and asserting that other editors have “dropped from view”, “moved on”, that “I really don’t’ think anyone else wishes to continue this,” that “everyone's had enough”, and that “There are umpteen articles out there still in need of attention. That's where our effort should be concentrated.” In the same diff, Asgardian even distorted User:Scott Free’s statement that the participating editors had provided a basis for a resolution to mean that the RfC had been resolved. That editors post more frequently on the RfC page when it is first started than they do after posting the bulk of their summaries is understandable, but it in no way means that it is appropriate for the subject of the RfC to determine when it is closed, or to employ the False Either/Or Fallacy by implying that attention can either be given to the RfC or articles in need of editing, when editors are more than capable of doing both, as there is no time limit on Wikipedia. In fact, editors continued to post on that Talk Page subsequent to this February 1 comment by him, and on the case page as well. User:BOZ also affirmed that the RfC would close when this stopped. The RfC closed on February 24, more than three weeks after Asgardian claimed it was over, during which many editors continued to post their thoughts on those pages.

Again pursuant to the inconsistency that illustrates Asgardian’s stated principles to be fraudulent, compare this with his citing BOZ’s assertion that I tried to “push BOZ into action”, with regards to this arbitration, and BOZ advising that it is a community decision, and not for me to decide alone. This comment by BOZ did not follow from anything I said to him. Read my discussion with BOZ. I criticized BOZ for what seemed to be equivocation on his part with respect to this matter, questioned the consistency and reason in his statements, and politely asked him—once—to reconsider his position, none of which constitutes “pushing” him to do anything. Not only did I not “push” him, I actually apologized to him for misrepresenting him here (since I erroneously thought he was for banning Asgardian as I was, until he indicated otherwise here), and when BOZ asked me if I wanted him to remove his statement on the case page, I told him no, saying, “I don't want to squelch dissenting opinions.” This is a push on my part? This is me trying to dictate the Arbitration myself? How? Again, Asgardian tries to dictate the closure of the RfC according to his whims, even claiming to speak for others, which the diffs I have provided show explicitly, but when I try to ask people to participate in this arbitration, I’m somehow “pushing” and trying to decide it on my own, even though nothing I said in my talk with BOZ shows this.

Asgardian’s lies and distortions have continued in this arbitration. On the case page, he states, “This whole section (3) seems to have become about trying to educate Nightscream (who is an administrator) about Wikipedia.” and “the focus has become about him and his conduct, which seems to be a driving desire to see myself somehow "punished". This is highlighted here 2, where WhatamIdoing states… On the evidence page, he says, “The issue of maintenance tags was also dealt with, and another user gives considerable instruction to Nightscream regarding this (5).” All three of those links lead to the six questions I challenged Asgardian to answer on the RfC talk page, and do not lead to any “instruction” to me on how Wikipedia works, nor do they show that the “focus” of the discussion to be about my conduct. The "instruction" remark is simply another example of Asgardian's unsubstantiated a priori belief that anyone who disagrees with him is ignorant or inferior in some way to him. Asgardian certainly wishes that were the focus, but no one else there expresses this viewpoint. The fact that one editor that Asgardian cites as dogma because he finds his statements favorable—WhatamIdoing—disagrees with my position does not mean that therefore, ipso facto, the “focus” of that page became me and my conduct, completely aside from the fact that I showed WhatamIdoing’s statements to be without merit. Most of the people commenting there agreed with me, in whole or in part, such as User:Tenebrae, User:BOZ, User:Tainted Conformity, User:WesleyDodds, User:RobertMfromLI, and User:David A. Again, why does Asgardian hold up WhatamIdoing’s comments as somehow representing the “focus” of that discussion, but exclude all these others? Regarding Asgardian’s continued refusal to respond directly to my refutations of his statements, and the vague innuendo he lobs at other editors, Tainted Conformity said this: Asgardian, whether or not you're in the right here, there is at least four people who have an issue with you, as they've been so kind as to say as much on the project page of this RFC. Dodging questions asked of you in an RFC about yourself isn't going to win you any favors…Could you please focus on your behaviour that has been brought up at this RFC, and either defend it with evidence or specifially state what you have/are appologzing for? So why does Asgardian hold up WhatamIdoing’s comments, but ignore Tainted Conformity’s? Simple. Because he perceived WhatamIdoing to be on his “side”, and since he knows he can’t answer any of my questions, he ignores Tainted Conformity when he points this out. Even if we are generous and assume as a given that Asgardian perceives these things about that discussion, isn’t this the very “opinion” and “subjective” viewpoint to which he has expressed dismissal?

As aforementioned, Asgardian tends to react badly when editors point out these instances in which he does not tell the truth. In addition to the two aforementioned instances of his calling Tenebrae and J Greb “obsessed” and “emotive” for this, despite the fact that those two editors provided evidence that Asgardian did not invalidate, he also lashed out at me for offering similar evidence of this type. Asgardian claimed in October that he doesn't "ever" make blind reverts. This was only a month to the day after he made a blind revert here, during the aforementioned Red Hulk matter, which again, I pointed out back when I reverted it. (I wasn't even aware at the time of the ones pointed out previously by others.) When I pointed this out, instead of simply conceding that perhaps his use of the word “never” was perhaps not the best choice, Asgardian reacted badly, leaving these silly taunts on my Talk Page, implying that my pointing this out was not proper admin conduct, was something for which I could lose my admin privileges, would "go to an overall pattern", and so forth. Asgardian attempted to couch these posts in a supposedly friendly, concerned tone, but given his history of evasive and intellectually dishonest behavior, this was transparently insincere, as these were clearly just veiled (and quite hollow) threats by him, because he simply did not like the fact that I pointed out a recent example of behavior on his part that he insisted he never engaged in. It is illustrative of how dismissive he is of the normal checks-and-balances to which all editors are subject that he reacts by acting as if noting such behavior by him is itself somehow a violation of policy.

These are not the sincerely-held statements of someone who merely has different interpretations of Wikipedia policy from others. All of these pieces of evidence are clearly the rhetorical tactics of a knowingly dishonest liar who brazenly seeks to manipulate the system on Wikipedia.

Conclusion

[edit]

Between his false assertions that editors who call attention to problems caused by him are less experienced than he is, to his dismissal of them as being fans rather than “Wiki scholars”, his assertion that others are intimidated by his level of knowledge, his false statements that the RfC Talk Page discussion was about “educating” me about Wikipedia and receiving “considerable instruction”, and the way he lashes out at administrators, falsely accusing them of behaving inappropriately when they call his statements into question, and dismissing criticism as “opinion” and “subjective”, invoking principles for others that he does not adhere to himself, and his overall use of this behavior to facilitate imposing his personal aesthetics on articles to the exclusion of other viewpoints, the picture that emerges is that of a deep-seated narcissist who sees himself as a source of superior wisdom and knowledge, occupying some sort of elevated position over all other editors, administrators and Wikipedia policies, for whom sincere adherence to the collaborative process we all submit to is an annoyance, and to which occasional lip service is sufficient to game the system and avoid serious sanction.

This is not a problem that can be addressed with “mentoring”, a “parole officer” or topic bans. Mentoring involves someone of experience providing advice or support to someone of lesser experience, often imparting some type of skill to them. But Asgardian’s problems have never been one of skill or experience. His problem is one of character. Deliberately lying, attacking people on a personal level who criticize you, making accusations that you refuse to elaborate on—these are acts of deliberate and calculating intent, and not ignorance or lack of skill. A mentor cannot make someone honest who is knowingly and deliberately dishonest, at least unless the offender is willing to acknowledge the underlying problem. The same problem is present with the “parole officer” analogy, which not only implies that some “punishment” has been carried out, but that the offender has acknowledged his offenses. As for a topic ban, what would this do? How would a topic ban change his insults to other people? How would it address the issue of his habitual inability to be honest?

Because administrative actions are intended to be preventative, and not punitive, the only way to prevent further behavior of this type by Asgardian is to block him permanently. If this committee resolves to apply yet another band-aid-on-a-bullet-wound solution, which in the past have either been violated by Asgardian or otherwise failed to cease his behavior, then it is certain that this behavior will continue, as it has to date. Should the block have the effect of convincing him that he has a problem, and the need to admit this, then I do not oppose him returning at some point, perhaps in a year, provided he directly answers questions posed to him regarding his behavior, in order to gauge his mindset with respect to principles of rational inquiry and good collaboration. But barring this, he should not be allowed to edit further.

I ask that all who wish to participate here read the RfC page, and its Talk Page, and closely examine all the evidence therein, as well as Asgardian’s overall history, such as his block log, past arbitrations, and AN/I’s. Look at all the people whose time and patience have been exhausted by his behavior. Look at their contributions. These are hard-working, good editors and administrators in good standing who have all contributed greatly to this project, some of whom do not even concern themselves with comic book-related articles. To dismiss them all, as Asgardian and does, does a grave disservice to them and their work, and is simply not realistic. I know this is a lot to read, but it is my position that an outsider cannot accurately grasp the pattern of his behavior with only a cursory glance at the issue’s history, and I ask that you do the right thing by gaining a proper command over this material before drawing any conclusions. Nightscream (talk) 11:32, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Rebuttal to Asgardian's response to this evidence

[edit]

In Asgardian's response to the above he perpetuates in the same tactics, as I expected he would:

  • He again employs the ad hominem accusation that this is "personal", that I am "emotional", and that my evidence constitutes an "attack", without falsifying the evidence against him, or illustrating a "personal" motive on my part with evidence, or responding to the evidence of my history that shows this theory of his to be unlikely, thereby again implying that any criticism of him constitutes an attack.
  • He again brings up the length of my evidence. Although the length of evidence was an issue for the Arbitration Evidence page, this was an administrative concern, and one which was remedied by User:Alexandr Dmitri and myself, via a condensed summary that fit the length prescribed for that page, and a link to this one. In any event, the amount of detail of this evidence is necessitated by the sheer volume of material that Asgardian provides us with his infractions, and the need to debunk his myriad canards. It requires some degree of chutzpah to accumulate an edit history fraught with such a volume of inappropriate behaviors, and then complain that the rap sheet complied by critics to this effect is "too long".
  • He again cites the comments of User:WhatamIdoing, and the lie that a section on the recent RfC talk page became about "educating" me about Wikipedia, while conveniently omitting the fact that WhatamIdoing himself agreed that Asgardian's behavior was indefensible, and that he was not defending Asgardian. Asgardian also omits the fact that I rebutted WhatamIdoing's comments on that talk page, as well as the fact that I refuted in my evidence summary WhatamIdoing's rather inane comments about focusing on the contributor rather than content, when the RfC was entirely about the contributor in question.
  • He again argues that he has had no direct dealings with me, when this is irrelevant to the issues raised by the editors who have recently compiled all the evidence against him.
  • He describes his recent participation in the Beyonce Knowles article by saying that he "made several attempts to mediate with the other editor", not mentioning that these attempts included the use of his stock "emotive" insult to other editors on that article's talk page, and that he and Off2riorob continued to revert the article persisently over the course of ten days while the talk page discussion was ongoing.

To Asgardian, the fact that these propaganda tactics were debunked by me and others doesn't matter, because his modus operandi is to simply repeat the same speciously reasoned ideas over and over again, perhaps in the hope that no one will notice that that they've been debunked.

The one somewhat new accusation Asgardian has made against me, however, is in this section of his response:

The section of Nightscream's argument that most distresses me is from his Conclusion section: "This is not a problem that can be addressed with “mentoring”, a “parole officer” or topic bans. Mentoring involves someone of experience providing advice or support to someone of lesser experience, often imparting some type of skill to them. But Asgardian’s problems have never been one of skill or experience. His problem is one of character. Deliberately lying, attacking people on a personal level who criticize you, making accusations that you refuse to elaborate on—these are acts of deliberate and calculating intent, and not ignorance or lack of skill. I find this to be inappropriate on several levels. It is offensive as Nightscream is judging me as a person and would seem to imply I have engaged in criminal conduct. Claims I "lie"; "attack people and "make accusations"? It could easily be argued that this is what Nightscream is doing now. I did not deserve this. It goes again to my assertion that this has become a vendetta. As BOZ states here ([29]), this is not a Nightscream decision, and I find it to be in very poor taste.

If I am "judging" Asgardian, then I am doing so by virtue of his actions and words to others, which is a fairly reasonable set of criteria by which to judge someone, certainly far moreso than his bringing up other editors' medical conditions, or imagined personal motives or grudges that he never bolsters with evidence. To him though, casting such aspersions is acceptable when he does it, but drawing conclusions about his editing behavior is not acceptable, even when relevant evidence is provided when doing so.

Regardless, nothing in my statements implies that he has engaged in "criminal conduct". The only thing that I and others have pointed out——not implied——is that he has engaged in violations of the rules of this site, which is not "criminal". If Asgardian is referring to the use of the phrase "parole officer", it should be noted that A. It's a metaphor, nothing more, B. It was Tenebrae, not I, who first employed that type of terminology on BOZ's talk page on February 25 (he used the phrase "probation officer"), and C. I was merely responding to this suggestion on Tenebrae's part to explain why I thought such a solution would not work. If this is what Asgardian was referring to when he accused me of implying "criminal conduct" on his part, then he was referring to me disagreeing with another editor's suggestion of this idea. Like most of his other arguments, this is just empty rhetoric.

Lastly, Asgardian takes issue with my statements that he has lied, attacked people and made accusations, and offers the rebuttal that this is what I have done myself. Again, notice how he does not make the distinction between the careful, good faith, calm use of this accusation, built upon a foundation of evidence and reasoning (which he fails to falsify), and his capricious use of such accusations as tactics of personal defamation, without said evidence, save for the occasional cherry-picked diff that on close inspection, fails to substantiate his assertions. Yes, Asgardian, I most certainly have accused you of lying, attacking people and making false accusations. This is the way of things in communities maintained by rules of conduct, and instances in which those rules are violated. Only in your mind, Asgardian, is it some type of transgression to point out when another person has committed a transgression. The difference between my doing this and your having done this, however, is that I and others have been meticulous in illustrating this accusation with supportive evidence, whereas you have not. But if you can provide evidence that shows that I deliberately conveyed a falsehood (something you've never even accused me of until now), evidence that excludes other possible explanations, then by all means do so. The fact that you cannot do so, and respond to such challenges with stonewalling, distortion, personal innuendo and non sequiturs, lies at the heart of your problem. Nightscream (talk) 21:53, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User:Nightscream/2010_Asgardian_Arbitration_Data_Index&oldid=1098110006"