Wikipedia:Requests for comment/ThreeE

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: 11:18, 16 September 2007 (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
ThreeE has made repeated demands of users to provide information not in accordance with Wikipedia policy or guidelines, otherwise, he states the information must go, showing his lack of knowledge regarding Wikipedia policy and guidelines (or at least the application thereof). He has also posted many other comments which violate a number of Wikipedia policies/guidelines. His actions are becoming extremely disruptive and have no end in sight. — BQZip01 — talk 11:18, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Desired outcome
If, after this discussion, ThreeE still does not largely comply with Wikipedia policy, I would like to see this user's editing rights revoked for an extended period of time (say 1-2 months). If that still doesn't work, I request his rights be permanently revoked.
 * Clarification as of 02:58, 17 September 2007 (UTC): I have come to learn that 1-2 months is not in line with precedent. Accordingly, I would like to emphasize certain words "an extended period of time" and request it be construed to mean anything over 2 days. Should consensus swing the other way (a ban for a longer timeframe), I would oppose it as being too severe.
 * I have come to see that a block simply isn't useful here if his opinion doesn't change. Request a simple directive from other administrator(s) and editors that his personal requirements are not in line with Wikipedia policy and that the tag be removed from said article. Additionally, I request that ThreeE be directed to accept the stated source and quit referring to them as "made up", unless he has evidence to the contrary
 * I believe this is getting us no where. Since these comments from other editors are not binding, it makes for a bad situation all around and ThreeE continues to nit-pick the article to to the point where his edits are becoming a nuisance. That said, no one seems to be acting on this RfC. With no action taken, I feel there is little else to do other than go to an RfA. Any admin is welcome to respond to my talk page for clarification. — BQZip01 —  talk 04:38, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Description
Numerous violations of Wikipedia policies and guidelines are becoming extremely disruptive

Evidence of disputed behavior
While specific evidence is cited below, it is important for anyone ruling on this to read the talk page of Fightin' Texas Aggie Band. While I realize this is a bit unorthodox, this user's comments are all over the talk page and the responses from other users are crucial to understanding the problem, so diffs won't show this. Please read the page and also consider the following diffs:
 * diff Edited this page despite my specific request not to do so. Taunts of his actions and how he is somehow superior were also evident. Violation of WP:ATTACK, WP:CIVIL, WP:Vandalism. Violates the spirit of WP:USER
 * (response to user on the page) This particular editor feels that it is necessary to discuss EVERYTHING even on my user pages, even after asking him NOT to do so. This particular page had about 5 extra paragraphs, which I deleted. I've kept this one only to show just how wrong and disruptive this editor continues to be. It was NOT the sole source. "99%" of the article was NOT backed up by this single reference. The reference in question is NOT from the organization which the article is about. See here. These assertions are LIES intended to mislead Wikipedia readers and harass myself. As such they are a violation of WP:ATTACK and WP:Vandalism
 * diff Accused the page (and indirectly the editor) of being nothing more than plagiarism. Violation of WP:ATTACK WP:CIVIL WP:AGF WP:V WP:RS
 * diff User re-adds tag. Violation of WP:CONSENSUS WP:3RR
 * diff User deletes my comments and insists on slander/libel. Violation of WP:Civil, WP:ATTACK
 * diff User re-adds tag. Violation of WP:CONSENSUS WP:3RR
 * diff User re-adds tag. Violation of WP:CONSENSUS
 * diff Discounts the opinion of this editor because he was part of said organization. Violation of WP:ATTACK
 * diff User re-adds tag. Violation of WP:CONSENSUS
 * diff Veiled accusation of plagiarism & "other". Violation of WP:V, WP:RS, WP:CITE, WP:ATTACK
 * diff Inserted an opinion on my user page and called me a liar. Violation IAW WP:Civil WP:ATTACK
 * diff reverted changes...again. Violation IAW WP:Consensus
 * diff Re-added changes to page were clearly intended to be inflammatory. Apparently the user feels that anything position/neutral about A&M is inaccurate and must be wrong/proven to be bad. Violation IAW WP:AGF WP:V WP:ATTACK WP:Vandalism WP:CIVIL
 * diff Failed to wait until consensus was reached & made his own unilateral edits to the page, despite agreements to the contrary. Violation IAW WP:Consensus
 * diff posted inaccurate, defamatory text. Violation IAW WP:V WP:ATTACK WP:CIVIL

I could go on, but I think I've made my point here (note that most of these occurred within 24 hours!) Again, with the efforts he has put forth on the aforementioned talk page, this information should be more than sufficient to understand the situation.

Applicable policies and guidelines
{list the policies and guidelines that apply to the disputed conduct}
 * WP:ATTACK "Using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views -- regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream or extreme" Just because I went to this school and was a member doesn't make my opinions/edits any less valid. This is also NOT WP:COI; could also refer to "Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done."
 * WP:Vandalism Generally this applies to "Sneaky vandalism...include[s] adding plausible misinformation to articles..." IMHO this includes adding text that asserts itself to be true IAW a said source, but the source doesn't back it up
 * WP:V
 * WP:RS
 * WP:CITE
 * WP:CONSENSUS
 * WP:Civil
 * WP:AGF
 * WP:USER
 * WP:3RR

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute
Again, I admit this is a bit unorthodox, but this user's comments are all over the talk page and the responses from other users are crucial to understanding the problem and diffs won't entirely show this. Please read the talk page in question for said evidence - BQZip01


 * Diffs indicating I have tried to work with ThreeE to resolve the dispute:, , , , , , , , , , Johntex\talk 18:32, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

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


 * — BQZip01 — talk
 * Johntex\talk 15:54, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Other users who endorse this summary

 * At least one instance of reinserting copyrighted material word-for-word. Unacceptable under any circumstances. Blueboy96 14:02, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Multiple instances of ignoring consensus, inaccurate and uncivil accusations, and unwillingness to follow wikipedia guidelines and policy by insisting that information added by other editors of this article be held to a higher standard than set forth for WP:V and WP:RS, multiple violations of WP:3RR on this article in the last week. -- Upholder 15:02, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Concur with Upholder. User in question fails to observe Wikipedia guidelines and submit to concensus in regard to this article. →Wordbuilder 15:27, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure some, if not all, of ThreeE's edits were trolling attempts that he happened to enjoy making. Take the Copyright issues discussion for example. Does he even have reference 1? Based on his controversial edits, I speculate that he really dislikes A&M.  Blue  Ag09  (Talk) 18:47, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Agree with Upholder, Postoak 18:54, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I was never one for reading up on Wikipedia guidelines. I am even one to be bold reckless with my editing, to the irritation of many editors.  I have had a small wikipedia argument with one of the creators of this session.  I even agree with some of ThreeE's points on the page.  I have never been a fan of the computer simulation statement.  And I do feel some of the other points within the article are of questionable importance on wikipedia.  BUT, ThreeE's personal attacks were unacceptable, and so was his  flagrant disregard for the consensus rule.  so, yes i do support this summary. Oldag07 19:44, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm with the rest of you. JRDarby 21:36, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * While I feel that ThreeE's initial comments were made in good faith, as time progressed I felt as if he were completely unwilling to work with the other editors to reach a compromise, instead insisting that we delete sentences and paragraphs (all cited) he didn't like. I felt as if he were holding the article to a higher standard than wikipedia requires, especially in regards to his repeated comments disparaging the article sources.  I requested clarification of the WP:RS policy at the Village Pump in the hopes of resolving one of our threads of contention, but despite their agreement that the source was of good quality, ThreeE continued to insist that the source not be used by itself.  I was also upset that he twice added material word-for-word from websites into the article, after he had accused the other editors of copyright infringement without ever having seen the disputed source.  However, ThreeE was not the only editor of this page to become heated, and I think some of his comments were intended to be humorous or were the result of frustration.  Because of that, I think the punishment requested here is excessive.    Karanacs 02:28, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Upholder says it perfectly. While BQZip01's behavior has been less than stellar, he has shown that he wants to work with others to build a better article and will go along with consensus. Spryde 10:57, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I basically Concur with Upholder. Altho I have had my own minor disagreement with BQZip01, we discussed and resolved same amiably. ThreeE was WAY out of line - his comments were initially somewhat amusing, even thought-provoking, but rather quickly devolved into being deliberately contentious, and occasionally just plain WRONG. I'm not familiar with the punishment procedures on Wiki, but as a retired naval officer my vote would be to follow a typical stairstep discipline procedure: Letter of Warning, Letter of Censure, Suspension, Extended Suspension, Ban. Hopefully things won't get to that extreme point. Note that this disciplinary progression should apply to BOTH editors in question - neither of whom exhibited particularly mature behavior during this debacle. In fact, I suspect this episode will come back to haunt and deeply embarass both gentlemen at some later date - when trying to get a job, for example.. c'mon, guys, is this the sort of thing you want a potential boss to learn about you?? Sheesh. Akindofmagick 18:23, 21 September 2007 (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 look forward to a larger community's comment on the article in question. I think that a full review of the talk page of the article in question and the comments on that talk page from those who won't know about the RfC will represent my position fine.

I am a bit stunned that someone would accuse me of personally attacking them -- I would ask for a particularly close look at this accusation. I may have questioned the content aggressively, but I certianly have not and would not ever attack anyone personally. If I have, I will apologize profusely.

Posted on behalf of ThreeE from his talk page.--Chaser - T 19:46, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I believe that most of this issue revolves around two issues: 1) my violation of WP:3RR, and 2) BQZip01's lack of sensitivity to WP:COI -- especially how to avoid COI edits. My violation of 3RR, while due to a misunderstanding of the letter of the law, was a violation nonetheless (with time served). While I cannot speak for another user, I will certainly not violate WP:3RR again. [] ThreeE 03:14, 17 September 2007 (UTC) Posted on behalf of ThreeE from his talk page.--Chaser - T 03:44, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Note that while I and several others feel the current POV tag on the article of interest is warranted, I did not put it there. I welcome a Checkuser process to clear my name of this accusation. Additionally, I haven't made any substantive edits to the article page in question since the author of this RfC and I agreed to avoid such edits. Unfortunately, the author of this RfC would not agree to such an agreement for the talk page. ThreeE 19:07, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1) Arzel

Response by Arzel
I feel this is a highly inappropriate RfC by BQZip01. You have an essence a WP:COI article which upon reaching FA status was questioned regarding some specifics, most notably the immposible nature of the complex drills. Although BQZip01 claims to work toward concensus and AGF, he and a few other Aggies editing the page are unwilling to negotiate regarding some of the exceptional claims made in reference to this article, as well as the wiping of any negative information regarding the T A&M Marching Band (MOB incident). And now he has canvassed what appears to be just about every Aggie in Wikipedia, while failing to even notify me of this RfC, even though I have been a participant since the beginning of these disuputes.

Perhaps ThreeE has been a little too aggressive regarding this issue, but the response by BQZip01 has been no better, and to bring up a RfC in what is really a dispute between two editors is very disturbing. Furthermore, the claim that he (BQZip01) has tried to resolve this disupte is questionable at best. As a former member of the Aggies Band, and the primary editor of the article one should really question the WP:COI regarding this whole RfC on behalf of BQZip01, as well as the reliability and verfiability of any of the claims made within the article which seem to come from a reference book that only he has easy access. Arzel 17:07, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1) Arzel
 * 2) Djgranados 04:07, 10 October 2007 (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.}

Outside view by User:RG2
Frankly, this situation has gotten completely out of control due to users on both sides of the dispute.

Some of User:ThreeE's issues with the articles in question are indeed valid. User:Oldag07 mentions that he agrees with some of these points in his endorsement of User:BQZip01's statement of the dispute, such as his dislike of the computer simulation statement. So do I, as I feel that while it's verifiable, that doesn't mean the sentence, as it's worded right now, makes any sense or has any actual meaning. So User:ThreeE quibbles aren't coming out of thin air.

And to his credit, User:BQZip01 has listened to and responded to many of the issues raised, eventually creating a workspace for himself to mull over some of the issues at User:BQZip01/FTAB. This is the kind of teamwork we should strive for, as the Fightin' Texas Aggie Band article is largely in good shape. There are a few minor quibbles here and there, and though I admittedly haven't read through the entire article, I don't see a pressing need for a Featured Article Review. Progress has been made to improve the article since it was displayed on the front page. Now, however, the conflict has deteriorated to the point where I don't see much getting done until it's settled. Both sides have stepped over the line.

User:ThreeE's behavior has primarily been disruptive due to continued revert warring and a number of misguided talk page requests. Two blocks for WP:3RR violations in just a couple of days? He should really know better than that. And the second block for repeated addition of a tag? That's pretty, in lieu of a better word, lame.

And though he makes other valid criticisms, he goes on to make blanket accusations about the copyright status of the entire article, like he did here. Does he bother to provide specific evidence for violations? Not really. User:Johntex brings up an interesting point in regard to the validity of this claim here. And there was the whole discussion about verifiability and reliable sources, where he failed to recognize a number of sources as valid, despite overwhelming consensus against him (including the opinions of uninvolved editors). Finally, he made some unreasonable demands, such as his asking for the inclusion of who simulated the drill, when it clearly didn't matter given the bigger issue at hand.

However, I don't agree with many of the accusations against User:ThreeE. I see no evidence of WP:VAND, and the two diffs User:BQZip01 provided are quite a stretch. I see the WP:V and WP:RS issues more as a misunderstanding that some of the references indeed came from third-party sources, though his continued claims that they were invalid sources were definitely a bit sketchy. And as for personal attacks ... well, a lot of those diffs are, again, quite a stretch, and though his comments in regard to User:BQZip01's affiliation with A&M could have been appropriate, his continued and aggressive pressure certainly was not. All in all, I think that User:ThreeE:


 * Egregiously violated WP:3RR, WP:CONSENSUS by edit warring.
 * Violated WP:ATTACK, WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF by questioning User:BQZip01's affiliations, though I don't think he intended it as an attack.
 * Understood WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:CITE, but misunderstood their applicability to this particular situation. This misunderstanding led to his other violations above.
 * Did not violate WP:VAND. And the WP:USER issue ... it really isn't a big deal.

User:BQZip01 behavior hasn't been completely reproachless, either. He is also guilty of edit warring (violation of WP:3RR). He has engaged in personal attacks (violation of WP:ATTACK – also note improper accusation of vandalism). He is not civil (violation of WP:CIVIL). And though I understand why he's angry, he has also stopped assuming good faith (violation of WP:AGF. We should always assume good faith, but block and revert bad actions. All in all, I think that User:BQZip01:


 * Egregiously violated WP:3RR by edit warring and WP:CIVIL and WP:ATTACK through incivility and personal attacks.
 * Should remember to follow WP:AGF in regard to editors and only take action against bad edits. -- RG2 21:59, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1) Ntmg05 - I agree with this summary except for A) I don't believe the violation of WP:CONSENSUS was egregious, but instead a letter-of-the-law violation as opposed to that plus spirit-of-the-law, whereas his egregious violation of WP:3RR did violate both the letter and the spirit; and B) I don't believe his questioning of BQZip01's bias was unsubstantiated or personal considering his stated concern over NPOV and the seemingly contradictory Wikipedia policy.  Furthermore, I agree that BQZip01's responses weren't always conducive to civility and/or consensus-building and that he took an unnecessarily confrontational, defensive approach to the dispute based on his personal relationship with the topic.  Ultimately, I don't believe this situation warrants a long-term banning of ThreeE at this time on the condition that all parties agree to approach disputes from a more constructive angle in the future.  --Ntmg05 22:38, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Isaac Pankonin 05:58, 18 September 2007 (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.