Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Cumulus Clouds

In order to remain listed at Requests for comment/User conduct, 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 &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126;. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 21:53, 9 February 2008 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is:, 29 July 2024 (UTC).



Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.

Statement of the dispute
This user has a long history of combative, unnecessarily aggressive, misleading/false statements, and other inappropriate edits which have devolved into a collection of half-truths, outright lies, threats, and other edits designed to disparage myself and discourage valid edits to Wikipedia.

Desired outcome
My desired outcome is for this user to cease his harassment, misquoting, lies, etc. To prevent further damage/disruption to Wikipedia, I request that the user be blocked for 3 days to emphasize the point.

Description
(a.k.a. CC) and I have interacted on a number of articles. I believe my first interaction with him was regarding Kyle Field where he made this edit. From the very beginning, he was combative, unnecessarily aggressive, made misleading/false statements, and made other inappropriate edits. These soon devolved into half-truths, outright lies, threats, and other edits designed to disparage/intimidate myself. This editor knows the edits he's doing are designed to intimidate, but the places he posts these opinions have influenced others in a negative way poisoning the debate process. This page is intended to document such edits by CC and show he is a disruptive force within Wikipedia. These are merely my opinions on the subject and I am not aware of any Wikipedia consensus that exists regarding any of his actions. Furthermore, this is not reflective of anyone's actions except CC, so please read them in their complete context as necessary.

I would also like to state that, in my experience, anyone who does one of these types of actions usually goes away after a short explanation ("Oh, I'm sorry. I thought it was XYZ. Thanks.") or perhaps even a longer discussion, but it dies quickly. I realize a thick skin is sometimes needed in a discussion, but the actions of this individual have become disruptive as a whole and need to be addressed by the Wikipedia community. I invite you both to peruse this user's contributions and reversions noted below. Please do not exclusively read my comments/impressions, but read them within their related context.

Misleading statements/Baseless accusations
Throughout my interaction with CC, he has repeatedly misquoted me in order to make it sound as if I am being unreasonable, quibbling over semantics, wikilawyering (a term I despise; used when someone points out a certain edit is allowed and points out the policy that allows it...but someone else still doesn't like it, so he accuses the other person of bad behavior) or any of a number of other goals, when, in fact, I didn't say or contribute such a thing. The consistency in this leads me to believe that he is intentionally modifying what I typed in order to create a false negative impression of me. In short, he is lying in order to manipulate and he reads what he wants to read and ignores everything else. Accusations centered on these baseless claims are damaging to my credibility and violate WP:CIVIL, WP:TALK, etc. Examples of this behavior are noted below:

"Most of the information in this section is WP:OR, meaning that it is somebody's opinion and is not (and cannot be) supported by citation."
 * People have opinions all the time. If it is a prevailing opinion, it certainly is applicable and appropriate to note. Information in this section was supported by 4 references. Further information on the talk page increased this information to around 20 sources with more sources available and noted with links to google searches with hundreds of applicable results. CC has ignored all such inputs.

"...saying that a reputation was deserved or not is also WP:OR."
 * ...except that one of the sources specifically uses that phrasing. Whether or not it passes WP:NPOV is certainly a concern given that it comes from Texas A&M's website, but to imply that my edits are WP:OR is absurd. I can understand missing a line in a reference (websites can be hard to find a needle in a haystack of text), but at this point, I felt as if he didn't read the cited sources.

"...the title "Intimidating venue" is POV since it is somebody's opinion and is not supported by citation."
 * Actually, it is specifically supported by citation. See above.

Violations of WP:AGF
"...I object to your immediate reverts to my edits under WP:OWN."
 * Editor cannot possibly know my state of mind. He has not interacted with me or talked to me at all. After a single edit he comes to this conclusion. Editor seems to have assumed that because I was a primary editor of the page.

"You clearly did not take time to understand the objections I was making without automatically reverting them."
 * Editor cannot possibly know my abilities as a reader nor my thought processes; assumes bad faith.

"In this case, you wasted little time in considering why I had made those changes before reverting all of them. This is symptomatic of an editor laboring under the belief of ownership over an article."
 * Respectfully, symptoms are not proof and I read quickly. Accusing someone of something does not make them guilty of it. A lack of any sort of evidence fails to assume good faith and poisons the discussion process.

Violations of WP:CIVIL/WP:NPA (hostility, bullying, and/or threatening behavior)
This user repeatedly undoes my “vandalism” when a "content dispute" is the subject. As such, these are not vandalism. Wikipedia defines vandalism very carefully to exclude good-faith contributions. 'Accusing other editors of vandalism is uncivil unless there is genuine vandalism, that is, a deliberate attempt to degrade the encyclopedia, not a simple difference of opinion. A clear pattern of harassment, bullying, and/or threatening behavior is clearly evident within these edits.

"He has acted immaturely and so was rightfully opposed for doing so. It doesn't matter what his occupation is and frankly I think he could use a reality check instead of constantly trying to fall back on his position with the Air Force to justify his behavior in an online encyclopedia."
 * I'm truly at a loss for words on this accusation and I don't mean to get too emotional on this one, but how dare you! I have never in my life tried to justify an edit simply because I was in the Air Force. These lies (and yes, by now it should be painfully obvious this is a lie) are the reason we are here. You make stuff up about me and hope no one checks you out. Seeing how this is an inflammatory lie designed to directly impugn my integrity, yeah, I'm really pissed at this one.

"If you revert these edits again I will make an RfC and, if necessary, RfMs and RfAs because of BQZip01's many and numeous [sic] violations of WP:OWN."
 * This was out FIRST interaction on a talk page. I want to emphasize that this is how we started interacting: by him assuming bad faith from the get-go. He apparently saw the edit history, assumed what I did was unnecessary, and started off our interactions with unwarranted hostility, unsubstantiated accusations, and threats in order to get his way.

"I will be filing an RfC shortly to correct these concerns."
 * Note that his intent is not to use an RfC to solicit feedback on a dispute, but to use it as a threat to get his way. Some people acquiesce to threats and just do what the more experienced user tells them to do. I have a brain and know I didn't do anything wrong. I don't respond well to threats and no one in the community should have to either IAW WP:CIVIL, et al.

Stalking
Following almost every edit I make with one of his own (many misleading, inaccurate, or outright fabrications) on various pages which he never had an opinion before:

       more stalking

The next to last one was only mere hours after I got rollback privileges

Acting on personal beliefs as if they are policy
"Well, I believe that taking a very strong line against original research and requiring numerous references improves the reliability of the information in most articles."
 * This is neither a Wikipedia policy or guideline. Requiring other editors to submit to one's own personal standards is not appropriate.

"Removing the word "often" brings this article farther away from being neutral since it implies a universal view that everyone regards Kyle Field as one of the most intimidating venues. There is no source for this (and there can never be an authoritative source for it) so it should be (at the very least) reinserted or (ideally) removed with that entire sentence and/or section."
 * His word choice (with no discussion) violates WP:PEACOCK and was removed. It does not imply a universal view by everyone, but does imply the general opinion within the sports world that Kyle Field is indeed intimidating; LOTS of sources back that up. There are plenty of authoritative sources on the subject to include sports writers, the other teams' players, opposing coaches/athletic staff, etc. To say there can never be an authoritative opinion on the subject simply discounts all these valid and published opinions with no logic. WP:V applies and is met.

"...my reasons for removing those articles are based on violations of WP:AUTO where I believe that Schmidt authored that article to promote himself. He has already said several times that he paid somebody to promote him (though I dispute this and believe he performed the edits himself) through Wikipedia. Again, I believe that that transaction, regardless of any and all WP:COI concerns, makes the writing unsalvageably unencyclopedic and thus should be deleted."
 * WP:COI and WP:AUTO do not state that people can't edit their own article or their article faces removal (let's remember Jimbo himself did this!) or that someone from promotional department can't write an NPOV article. Mr Schmidt was cleared of all "wrongdoing" and CC's assumptions about both of us led to a very hostile article talk page.

Other

 * First reaction to a revert to one of his edits is to re-revert creating an air of hostility where a discussion is needed
 * 
 * my edit
 * 
 * my second edit (w/ refs, as requested)
 * (last one's edit summary is a violation of WP:VANDAL)


 * Assumes IPs are vandals
 * 
 * 


 * Pledge (designed to illicit sympathy, but made and then broken)
 * These reasons and others reduce his credibility dramatically
 * "I will no longer attempt to make any further changes to this article for quite some time, but this should not be taken as a sign that your edits satisfy any of the concerns I've made."
 * ...followed by, , , and

"Well then why are you spending so much time belaboring a point that, as you've said, is a complete nonissue? That strikes me as being a gigantic waste of time"
 * Emotional hand grenade
 * A few of us are having an academic discussion about image usage. He simply inserts an inflammatory comment into the discussion designed to insult/disparage me and then leaves without waiting for an actual response; he apparently just wants conflict.

& "How about 72 hours."
 * No desire to compromise or work on building consensus
 * No desire to compromise or build consensus (either here or on a talk page). It is his way or the highway.

Other edits since filing this RfC
"m Reverted edits by BQZip01 (talk) to last version by Stephen"


 * This is the kind of thing that is really getting to me. No comments on the talk page (despite open questions and valid references). No edit summary. No discussion. It is just a revert, in violation of REVERT. I don't know how much more clear I can be that these kinds of edits are becoming counterproductive to the goals of Wikipedia.

Conclusion
These and other edits have become a pattern of disruption in violation WP:AGF, WP:NPA, WP:USER, WP:TALK, WP:VANDAL, WP:CIVIL, WP:CONSENSUS, and ArbCom has stated that removal of statements that are pertinent, sourced reliably, and written in a neutral style constitutes disruption. User should be blocked for a time commiserate with his experience in Wikipedia and the level of disruption.

Applicable policies and guidelines

 * 1) WP:AGF
 * 2) WP:NPA
 * 3) WP:USER
 * 4) WP:TALK
 * 5) WP:VANDAL
 * 6) WP:CIVIL
 * 7) WP:CONSENSUS
 * 8) ArbCom ruling.

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute
(provide diffs and links)
 * Talk:BQ
 * Talk:Kyle Field
 * Talk:Michael Q. Schmidt
 * WP:ANI

Users certifying the basis for this dispute
{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}


 * — BQZip01 — talk 22:01, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Johntex\talk 21:18, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

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.''

I've been patiently waiting for this user to file this so it can be reviewed and rejected. The origins of this debate are a handful of meaningless statistics in a section with a stupid title at Kyle Field and it has ballooned into a hostile and bitter argument that has been an incredible undertaking in process, bureaucracy and litigation. All meaningful edits on my part (and largely on the part of BQZip01) have halted while the community has endured an embarrassing display of tit for tat edit warring that culminates now in this page, which I oppose in its entirety.

I reject BQZip01's statements about my participation in his RfA because I did then and I do now feel that he is grossly unfit to be an administrator. I also renew my objections to BQZip01's ownership over Texas A&M articles, since it is that mistaken belief that has led us to this RfC. I firmly object to Johntex's certification, since he and I have never had a dispute outside of the context of the pre-existing debate with BQZip01. I reject all other statements made by BQZip01 regarding my edits as being malicious, improper or false. I have previously attempted to resolve this dispute with epically poor results. In prolonging this dispute in several different forums, this user has used the processes of Wikipedia in bad faith to spite me for the work I have done on this encyclopedia and I therefore ask that this RfC be rejected. Thank you.

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1) Cumulus Clouds (talk) 22:26, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

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:

Outside view by Lawrence Cohen
No evidence of conflict with any other users on this, so this RFC may not be certifiable and if so will be deleted after 3 days, if that is the case. The preparation page as mentioned in Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:BQZip01/Comments will also need to be deleted (not just blanked) after. Also, blocks are never punative. And we have BQZ canvassing. Lawrence §  t / e  17:53, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1)  Lawrence  §  t / e  17:53, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 2)  the_undertow   talk  19:56, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) --TheOtherBob 04:14, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) Cumulus Clouds (talk) 08:12, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * (moved discussion to talk page, please revert if not appropriate) Franamax (talk) 23:00, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * (re-add endorsement by Tu that I nuked) Franamax (talk) 23:26, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 11:56, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Outside meta view by User:Argyriou
I'm not familiar with the details of the dispute between BQZip01 and Cumulus Clouds, and I'm not terribly interested, as it hasn't spilled over into any place I care about, except that User:Lawrence Cohen seems to have taken a side under the pretense that he is a neutral party, caring only about process and policy. Lawrence's behavior at the MfD and the second AN/I thread regarding this dispute make it clear that he is not a neutral party, and make it only borderline plausible that his view is an "outside" view. Taking a side - becoming the advocate for Cumulus Clouds - is a perfectly acceptable thing for an administrator to do. But all his statements, including the rather premature statement about the certifiability of this case, need to be viewed in light of his bias against BQZip01, and should be given about as much weight as would a statement by Cumulus Clouds directly. Argyriou (talk) 00:21, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1) Argyriou (talk) 00:21, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) — BQZip01 —  talk 04:14, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Johntex\talk 04:18, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) Wordbuilder (talk) 16:00, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 5) --Rocksanddirt (talk) 01:19, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Outside view by Wknight94
The animosity between BQZip01 and Cumulus Clouds is a mystery and the evidence given here does nothing to clear that up. This diff is fairly benign, all things considered, but is repeated eight times above as evidence of something (hard to say what). The stalking section is weak but confirms that both editors need to take all of each others' pages off their watchlists and find separate parts of Wikipedia to play in. It's a very big place so this shouldn't be difficult to accomplish. If either has specific article issues they disagree about, try mediation. This RFC and the drama leading up to it are not reflecting well on anyone.

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1) —Wknight94 (talk) 03:42, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) —Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 03:49, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 3)  Lawrence  §  t / e  04:18, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 4)  Lara  ❤  Love  13:05, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 5) --Rocksanddirt (talk) 01:19, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Outside view by TheOtherBob
My Understanding of the Situation

This analysis isn't going to be brilliant (or short), but time is limited these days -- I'm hoping to present each side's view fairly, and suggest ways each can improve. I'm sure there will be points in this with which people disagree -- that's fine.

What we seem to have here is two editors, each of whom feels like the other is bullying them. CC seems to feel bullied by BQZ's style of editing, while BQZ seems to feel that CC is attacking him broadly on a range of issues related to that editing style.
 * If I were CC, I might feel like I tried to make a small change to an article (Kyle Field), got reverted 15 minutes later without discussion, and ended up in a slap-fight with an editor who just wouldn't give on anything. I'd feel like BQZ tries to get his way by just being more "difficult" than anyone else - arguing every little point for weeks at a time, throwing around accusations, and becoming easily offended when accused of anything in return.  At this point, I imagine that I might even just want BQZ to leave me alone -- but might feel like he instead keeps escalating and escalating.  I'd likely feel that this RFC is an attempt to re-argue and get the last word in about...well, everything.
 * If I were BQZ I might feel like I was minding my own business one day when someone came along and started demanding that I make changes to a page I had worked on -- and accusing me of bad faith and ownership for refusing. I'd feel like the person then began attacking not just that article, but my whole Wikipedia persona -- as noted above, CC has objected not only to BQZ's behavior on article talk pages, but also to BQZ's use of "Band Queer" on his user page, and to the drafting of this RFC on BQZ's user page.  And, of course, CC participated in BQZ's failed RFA.  As BQZ I might feel like I have to win every point so as to show that I'm not going to change at all in response to this type of criticism.
 * If I were either person I'd feel like the other was stalking me, just because they somehow kept showing up on the same pages. Seriously, I have no idea how these two people keep running into each other...but however it is, they should stop.

My Views

In reviewing the above RFC and interacting with the editors during the MFD, I have developed some views on the situation.
 * My personal view of BQZ thus far is that he's not shown good judgment or much maturity in this instance. He seems to me to have prioritized "winning" over building an encyclopedia, and seems to believe that any action -- no matter its effect on other editors, the community, or even his own reputation -- is completely A-OK so long as it fits within his interpretation of a rule.  However, I also don't think we're seeing his best side -- I think this whole thing puts him in a bad light and makes him feel defensive.
 * My personal view of CC is limited, because he's edited only sparingly in this. Despite all that BQZ has written above, I don't find CC's behavior in most of the cited diffs to be all that bad -- most are honest disagreements.  However, I really didn't like the way he began the discussion at Kyle Field -- way too aggressive -- and he has since been more accusatory than I'd like in dealings with BQZ.  (I don't, for example, understand why he thinks BQZ was engaging in ownership prior to CC's first edit to Kyle Field...maybe he can explain, but I just don't see that.)  But while I can't say that I like everything he said in his dispute with BQZ, I do like that he doesn't seem to want to re-argue the whole mess, and that he seems open to compromise.  (Though that faint praise may well be misplaced if CC keeps saying things like this: .  Knock it off, man.)

Suggestions

So what to do? First, CC needs to be more civil with his disagreement, and to assume more good faith. He needs to understand that you have to approach every disagreement with a spirit of compromise, and that charging into a page making accusations of ownership raises hackles and leaves a bad first impression with other editors who have worked hard on it. BQZ needs to learn that Wikipedia requires compromise, and that he has to work with other editors and consider the possibility that they might be right -- even when pissed off at them. He needs to not wiki-lawyer, and to learn that the biggest rules on Wikipedia are "common sense" and "compromise." (And reading WP:AAGF wouldn't hurt.) He needs to learn that "lines in the sand" are fine for schoolyard fights, but not fine if you want to build something together with other people. And, sorry, but for the love of God he needs to learn to let things go.

Beyond that? Nothing. Everyone should be trouted, group-hugged, and returned to editing. So hugs and trouts all around, and who wants a beer?

Users who endorse this summary:


 * 1) --TheOtherBob 07:42, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Johntex\talk 07:58, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 3)  Lawrence  §  t / e  08:07, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) Cumulus Clouds (talk) 08:12, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 5)  Lara  ❤  Love  13:10, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 6) Wordbuilder (talk) 16:00, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 7) —Wknight94 (talk) 16:04, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 8) Sχeptomaniacχαιρετε 18:23, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, but don't use rollback other than to revert obvious vandalism. Stifle (talk) 12:09, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) The good thing about trouts is that you can always fry them up in butter afterwards :) Franamax (talk) 12:37, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Keeper   |   76   |   Disclaimer  23:04, 20 February 2008 (UTC). Sounds like the easiest solution available.
 * 3) I just don't see a case here. Raymond Arritt (talk) 04:41, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 4)   Socrates2008 (  Talk  )   05:02, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 5) --Rocksanddirt (talk) 01:21, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 6)  Gtstricky Talk or C 14:26, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

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.

$$Insert formula here$$