Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/ThreeE

Unconvinced.

I have read the talk page as it exists now, and I have the following thoughts regarding the accusations. Please note that my responses are based mostly on evidence presented in the "diff" links but also my interpretation of context on the talk page as it exists now. If you have further evidence to support your claims outside of those links, it is your responsibility as the accuser to clearly present that evidence here. I will not investigate your claims for you. Futhermore, I have limited my comments to the specific items have issues with. For the other charges I haven't addressed, I have either addressed a similar charge already, have no opinion at this time, or do not consider the charge significant enough to warrant additional discussion.

• 1. 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 To be blunt, I think you need to lighten up. You are not the owner of any particular article, and Wikipedia is specifically designed to allow anyone to edit and contribute. ThreeE has the option to ignore your request not to edit an article if he so chooses as long as he is not otherwise violating Wikipedia policies and has evidence or a logical point to back up his edited (in most cases I read, he did raise valid points.)
• 1. 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.' Your attempt to link "accusing the page" to "accusing the editor" is pretty weak. You may have interpreted it that way in your mind, but there is no contextual evidence to suggest that was how it was intended. However, there is evidence that he misunderstands the fair use standard in regards to Wikipedia.
• 2. User re-adds POV tag. Violation of WP:CONSENSUS WP:3RR. How many people constitute a consensus? According to my quick review of the comment sections which included discussions of removing the POV tag, there were three editors for, three against, and one undecided. That may or may not follow the letter of Wikipedia policy regarding consensus, but in my opinion, it pretty obviously violates the spirit. There was considerable bickering and very little consensus building, and essentially every suggestion made by ThreeE was shot down with endless citations of Wikipedia policy. I don't think it's appropriate for the larger side to now attempt to silence the minority simply because they are tired of trying to explain their viewpoints.
• 3. User deletes my comments and insists on slander/libel. Violation of WP:Civil, WP:ATTACK. Was there any attempt at an requesting an explanation for this? It could have simply been an accident.
• 6. Discounts the opinion of this editor because he was part of said organization. Violation of WP:ATTACK. Wikipedia policy on personal attacks seems to conflict with policy regarding NPOV. On the one hand, it's against policy to attack someone because of their association with a particular group or viewpoint. Fair enough. However, NPOV policy states, "all editors and all sources have biases," and, "One is said to be biased if one is influenced by one's biases." Does BQZip01 have a bias regarding this article? Yes. Is BQZip01 influenced by his bias? I don't think there's clear evidence, but it's definitely possible. Is ThreeE correct in highlighting BQZip01's possible bias? Yes, because it's a valid point according to NPOV policy. Did ThreeE attack BQZip01 as a person? No, he attacked his bias, which I don't believe violates WP:ATTACK. If it did, no one could legitimately challenge another person's bias.
• 12. Failed to wait until consensus was reached & made his own unilateral edits to the page, despite agreements to the contrary. Violation IAW WP:Consensus. I fail to see how the facts presented in that sentence were negatively affected. Had he made an edit that fundamentally changed the facts, such as changing a positive to a negative, then there would be a legitimate complaint. Instead, ThreeE attempted to clarify a questionable sentence with a verifiable source. Even if there was an ongoing discussion regarding the point, a Wikipedia user is not required to solicit your approval prior to making an edit.
• 13. posted inaccurate, defamatory text. Violation IAW WP:V WP:ATTACK WP:CIVIL. In what way does this violate any of these policies? The information is not at all favorable toward the Yell Leaders, and it isn't really incorporated into the article very well, but it's properly cited and relevant.

As an outsider to this dispute, I realize that I may have missed subtle events that influenced the events. However, you specifically invited me to offer my opinion, and at this point, I think the evidence presented has been ambiguous at best. If you have additional evidence to present, please feel free to do. I will examine that evidence and update my opinion as necessary. --Ntmg05 17:58, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

First, let me say that I appreciate the thorough feedback and I will respond to each issue specifically starting from the bottom up. Additionally, your request may take some time to respond to, so please allow me to respond completely before commenting.

• 1. "Your attempt to link 'accusing the page' to 'accusing the editor' is pretty weak. You may have interpreted it that way in your mind, but there is no contextual evidence to suggest that was how it was intended. However, there is evidence that he misunderstands the fair use standard in regards to Wikipedia."

I concur that this person does not understand "fair use" as defined by Wikipedia. As for the rest, there is a direct link between the two. Additionally, he has stated that he does not even have access to the book in question. When all of his comments are taken into account from the talk page, I believe there is a clear correlation (emphasis added):

"This entire article is basically a cut and paste job by a single editor from a aggie yearbook and a cheerleader's guide. As such, it needs to be carefully reviewed for NPOV and factually inaccurate material. It also warrants a copyright warning banner. ThreeE 05:23, 11 September 2007 (UTC)"

"Another issue -- almost every paragraph cites reference #1 -- a reference that isn't easily available and is, again, a publication of the very institution being written about. This is 1) not easily verifiable, 2) not a third party, 3) not NPOV. It makes the article seem like a cliff notes version of the reference. This probably should be called out with a copyright banner...ThreeE 23:48, 12 September 2007 (UTC)"

"Arkansas isn't safe either! 'The director doesn't want to hear the Arkansas band, he wants to hear the Aggie Band.' Was this really said? Probably not because, you guessed it, it came from reference #1. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ThreeE (talk • contribs) 19:33, September 12, 2007"

"...most of this is harmless mythology surrounding a band at a school...Just label it as such.... It is fine for the aggie yearbook to tout these myths -- but not Wikipedia. ThreeE 23:58, 12 September 2007 (UTC)"

"I continue to believe that this article has serious copyright issues. Almost every paragraph is simply a re-ordering of words from either reference #1 or aggie band website material. Google any sentence that has reference #1 in it and you find it. ThreeE 17:53, 15 September 2007 (UTC)"

I did as requested (see talk page for specifics) and stated that no such copyvio existed. This was the response:

"That's right -- it's all a cliff note version of reference 1...Re-ordering copied words (as most of this article has done) doesn't change the fact that it is copied. ThreeE 22:35, 15 September 2007 (UTC) "

"I do know that it isn't right that the primary (almost sole) author, who is/was a member of the subject organization...should not be the one to determine if we have eliminated conflict of interest and POV issues that multiple editors (not just me) have identified. It also should be discussed here for a long enough time to allow others to weigh in. ThreeE 22:30, 15 September 2007 (UTC)"

As such, I believe this user has accused me of plagiarism.

For the sake of argument, I'll agree he accused you of plagiarism. However, if his facts are correct and that much of the article was a reworded version of another work, I agree with that accusation. It IS plagiarism. But even then, the point remains that Wikipedia employs a fair use doctrine that specifically allows a certain amount of "plagiarism," which then invalidates his point. Furthermore, I still believe you're reading far too much into his statements. While critical, their tone is ambiguous, and I don't believe it's in anyway fair to judge his words based on the tone in which your inner-voice read them. --Ntmg05 22:18, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Then I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this one. I personally believe he is intentionally calling my integrity into question. Honestly, either this article. In addition, he is duplicitous. Either everything from that source is "copied" from the book, or it is "a myth" (which I read as "a lie"). —Preceding unsigned comment added by BQZip01 (talk • contribs) 23:34, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

• 12. " 'Failed to wait until consensus was reached & made his own unilateral edits to the page, despite agreements to the contrary. Violation IAW WP:Consensus.' I fail to see how the facts presented in that sentence were negatively affected. Had he made an edit that fundamentally changed the facts, such as changing a positive to a negative, then there would be a legitimate complaint. Instead, ThreeE attempted to clarify a questionable sentence with a verifiable source. Even if there was an ongoing discussion regarding the point, a Wikipedia user is not required to solicit your approval prior to making an edit."

In general, I agree with you, however, this user was making controversial edits and, in discussion, agreed to hold off making such changes until a consensus could be reached. Instead, he went to another page and did the same thing he said he wouldn't do.

• 13. " 'posted inaccurate, defamatory text. Violation IAW WP:V WP:ATTACK WP:CIVIL.' In what way does this violate any of these policies? The information is not at all favorable toward the Yell Leaders, and it isn't really incorporated into the article very well, but it's properly cited and relevant." The problem is not that the information is unfavorable (and I agree that it was cited). I agree that it would be relevant...but only if it were accurately quoted. ThreeE took information not only out of context, but four years removed from the statement he applied it to.

Quoting from the newspaper/online publication (emphasis added)

"It may come as a shock to some outside the state that there is a college in Texas where cheerleaders aren't de rigueur. But here at A&M, where traditions are fiercely guarded by current and former students alike, this pompom-clad clan is far from a welcome sight.

One recent editorial in the student newspaper, The Battalion, calls the squad "a slap in the face" to tradition."

Given his pension for citing negative things about Texas A&M and his claim that he knows what he is doing, I am left with only conclusion that he intentionally misquoted/misattributed the quote.

Quoting from the paragraph ThreeE contributed (his contribution)

"In 2005, however, a female was elected as Junior Yell Leader at Texas A&M University at Galveston, which is technically a part of the main campus in College Station. The A&M student newspaper called the election of a woman to the squad a 'slap in the face' to tradition."

Quoting from my response on the talk page:

I can understand some confusion here, so let's talk about each component at play here.

1. The Aggie Yell Leaders. These individuals are elected by the student body and lead the yells at sporting events.
2. TAMUG - Texas A&M University Galveston is technically a branch of the main campus, but does is often viewed as a separate, but related, institution. They have their own traditions, some of which are similar to the main campus. Their Yell Leaders are one of these similarities.
3. The Fightin' Texas Aggie Competition Cheer Squad. Formed in 2001, its sole goal is to compete in cheerleading competitions, not at the Aggie Games. Furthermore, they are NOT University sponsored; they are a club team (much like our rugby and men's soccer teams).

All three entities are NOT the same and do not serve the same functions and are not in the presence of the others for any competitions.

The article you referenced talks about the Fightin' Texas Aggie Competition Cheer Squad, not the Yell Leaders at the Texas A&M main campus (the direct subject of the Wikipedia article) or the Yell Leaders at TAMUG.

The Yell Leaders at Texas A&M are the rough equivalent of cheerleaders at other schools (though I don't know of any cheerleaders that are elected by the student body). They get the crowd fired up at games. They lead the coordinated yells of the student body ("Aggies don't cheer...they yell"). The competition cheerleading team's sole purpose is to go to cheerleading competitions. However, their existence at Texas A&M is seen by some as a threat to the tradition of Yell Leaders; a slippery slope: once the cheerleaders are on campus, they will want to do cheers/routines at the games.

So...now to the specific problems with the addition of your statement:

"In 2005, however, a female was elected as Junior Yell Leader at Texas A&M University at Galveston, which is technically a part of the main campus in College Station. The A&M student newspaper called the election of a woman to the squad a "slap in the face" to tradition."

1. There was a female Junior Yell leader elected in 2005 (please note the date; this comes into play later). It is an open election and anyone can apply. There was a break in history as she was the first female elected, but most people at A&M have little problem with that. We had our first female Student Body President not too long ago. It's an election and this is democracy in action. No major problems there with the students.
2. Your added statement makes it sound like the paper called the election of a female Yell Leader a "slap in the face" to tradition, but the article you cited is about the Fightin' Texas Aggie Competition Cheer Squad IN 2001!!! (check the date of the article) at the main Texas A&M campus, not the Yell Leaders at Texas A&M Galveston in 2005. It is the existence of a cheerleading squad on the main Texas A&M campus where the tradition of Yell Leaders is "threatened" ("We've gone this long without cheerleaders...why do we need them now?").

Additionally, the label you chose (sexism) for the article in question is clearly libelous as gender has NOTHING to do with the article in question (Yell Leaders) or the newspaper article you cited.

In short your allegations are:

1. Unduly inflammatory
2. Inaccurate
3. misleading
4. potentially libelous

Quoting from his response on the talk page of the article in question:

"I certainly don't know much about cheerleading at a&m. But the article I referenced does talk about the tension between two groups at the school -- one of which is the subject of this article. In order to balance this article's tone, it deserves mention."

Conclusion: ThreeE feels that anything that is said positively/neutrally about Texas A&M should be made less positive by adding negativity. I certainly don't object to negative things in the past/present regarding A&M and its organizations...as long as they actually happened or were at least pulled from a reliable source. Texas A&M has done things in the past that were not good (racism, sexism, hazing, etc), but these actions (as currently cited/quoted) are not them. Accordingly, this addition was a violation of WP:V WP:ATTACK WP:Vandalism and WP:CIVIL (apologies for the typo; corrected on main page):

WP:V: "Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed...The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material...The source should be cited clearly and precisely to enable readers to find the text that supports the article content in question."

WP:CIVIL: "Ill-considered accusations of impropriety of one kind or another...Lies...Personal attacks...Racial, ethnic, sexual, and religious slurs..."

WP:Vandalism: "Hidden vandalism: Any form of vandalism that makes use of embedded text, which is not visible to the final rendering of the article but visible during editing."

Last update: 20:30, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

[T]he "slap in the face" edit was fully referenced as being in the student newspaper and not a personal attack IMO. ThreeE 21:08, 16 September 2007 (UTC)Posted on ThreeE's behalf from his talk page.--Chaser - T 21:12, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

To be libelous, something must be intentionally said that was knowingly false or that was grossly negligent. ThreeE explains that he didn't know much about cheerleading at A&M, and he did provide a properly referenced source. Unfortunately, his lack of knowledge on the subject led to it being associated with the wrong topic. Was his edit knowingly false? According to his own comments, no. Was it grossly negligent? I suppose that depends on your definition of "gross," but I would say probably not unless he repeatedly reverted edits to correct the error during the discussion. Furthermore, it is not inappropriate to balance the tone of an article. Far too many articles on Wikipedia, especially university-related articles, are written as recruiting posters rather than scholarly works. --Ntmg05 22:19, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Desired outcome

My understanding of the user conduct RFCs is that they quickly assess community opinion of a particular article and/or editor to determine consensus and resolve the dispute. As such, I think the "desired outcome" should state what change the initiator wants to see in someone's editing of Wikipedia. Asking for a 1-2 month block, as here, is overboard. I don't have any particular suggestion here, although more discussion on talk pages and less reverting each other would be a start (and applies to others to some extent).--Chaser - T 23:00, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I am welcome to see other opinions on what should be done. — BQZip01 — ^talk 23:14, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the requested punishment is excessive. I'm not familiar with RfCs and what the outcomes usually are, but in an ideal world I'd like to see an analysis by neutral parties of what policies have been violated with an explanation of what should have been done (so that ThreeE, and the rest of us, can learn from the mistakes). We also need guidance on how to solve the POV tag edit warring (under what grounds can the tag be removed/placed). I also think we need to do a separate RfC on the article content, and have all parties agree that a consensus decision resulting from that will be binding on the article. The frustration level is climbing too high on all sides right now and preventing anything useful from happening. Karanacs 17:58, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

This is my first RfC and I have since corrected what was clearly an overboard request. — BQZip01 — ^talk 04:59, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Outside view

Outside view by User:RG2

In response to Ntmg05: I agree with you that a long-term ban is not warranted. I also agree with User:Chaser in the "Desired outcome" section of this talk page that a 1-2 month block is overboard. And I also agree with your simpler solution. If we were to lay down anything right now, we could perhaps ask both User:BQZip01 and User:ThreeE to limit themselves one revert a day ... but then again, even that doesn't seem necessary to me at this point, as edit warring need not reach 4 reverts before someone is blocked for disruption.

As far the rest of your endorsement goes, I agree with Part B. I'm not sure if I worded my language improperly, but I felt that "[al]though I don't think he intended it as an attack" was an attempt to get across the same point you were.

In Part A, though, you're probably right, and I'm probably wrong. I was linking WP:CONSENSUS too closely to WP:3RR, when one clearly doesn't always lead to the other. Hurried logic and writing, I suppose. Thanks. -- RG² 01:25, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Inside view

Inside view by User:BQZip01

All inputs are welcome, but I don't feel my actions (good, bad, or otherwise) are relevant to this discussion as it pertains to a specific user, not the actions of everyone on a talk page. I can certainly say that certain people's actions have been helpful and others have been a hindrance, but they are not appropriate here because we are discussing the actions a specific user, not the talk page.

I'm not a saint; never claimed to be one, but I feel my actions are being taken out of context.

1. The Fightin' Texas Aggie Band was featured as Today's Featured Article on 11 September 2007. It was left unprotected for an extended period of time (An EXCELLENT policy to protect against vandalism of TFAs would be to automatically semi-protect every TFA, IMHO. All of them WILL face significant vandalism by IP/new users). As such, it was subject to numerous counts of abuse by new and IP Wikipedia users. The reverts I did, given the limited nature of TFAs existing on the front page for 24 hours, I felt were in compliance with WP:3RR, "reverts to remove simple and obvious vandalism, such as graffiti or page blanking... (the link to vandalism types includes sneaky vandalism, which is what I intended to revert)." While the reverts were deemed by a new admin to be in violation of the policy, I was given no warning, no explanation, and no leniency for a first time offender, contrary to blocking guidance. Again, this was an attempt to protect the page on which I had worked so hard from repeated vandalism. I have come to realize that the changes by ThreeE were not exactly vandalism and I should have given the WP:3RR process more time to work. I will do so in the future (and, in fact, have done so recently). In addition, no admin seemed to want to protect the TFA page from this repeated vandalism, but, once protected, another admin reverted the protection, again opening the flood gates to IP users and their vandalism. Again, all I was trying to do was protect a page from unreasonable edits. Additionally, ThreeE at the time expressed no desire to discuss or come up with better phrasing ("delete it") has been his only response. This lack of willingness to come up with a compromise led me to fight for what I thought was the right thing to do. In retrospect, the WP:3RR process is remarkably expedient and I should have just waited for the process to take effect; I will do so in the future.
2. Allegations of personal attacks I believe are out of line in this case. While User pages are part of the community and are subject to editing by anyone, WP:USER implies others should not comment on User Pages unless requested. This desire was noted in both the heading and comments of the page. It was also explicitly asked of ThreeE, but he continued to post. My intent here was not to attack, but to more strenuously warn. I do not believe this constitutes an attack
3. I take exception to "He is not civil". Let's say for the sake of argument that I was not civil, I think I can improve. The statement that I am not civil implies I cannot change and it is a fact that I am not civil period, not an isolated case where I was uncivil.
4. The example cited for my lack of assuming good faith is again taken out of context and was clarified shortly later with Johntex agreeing that there was no malice intended. In general, I am skeptical about ThreeE's edits, but I have not stopped assuming good faith. I know he believes what he says, I just believe he is misguided...and so does everyone else that has commented thus far. — BQZip01 — ^talk 04:46, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I think that by not taking anyone else's actions into consideration, we begin to take User:ThreeE's behavior out of context. (I concur, but analyzing my actions shouldn't be part of it IMHO. I guess we're going to have to agree to disagree here — BQZip01 — ^talk 07:31, 17 September 2007 (UTC))

1. Articles featured on the main page are rarely, if ever, protected. There is and has been an incredible amount of resistance to automatically protecting it. Fightin' Texas Aggie Band was protected for longer than any other featured article in recent memory. Whatever the case, I'm glad you understand the reasoning behind the 3RR policy.
2. "FUCK YOU" is an attack. Denying that is quite a stretch, to say the least, and isn't really going to help you anywhere. (Inappropriate, maybe, but profanity is not a component of WP:ATTACK. That said, I won't be using it in the future, so any future discussion is merely academic — BQZip01 — ^talk 07:31, 17 September 2007 (UTC))
3. Here you're just reading too much into my words. OK, you were uncivil. Whatever. And the fact that you were uncivil is difficult to deny. (never said I wasn't — BQZip01 — ^talk 07:31, 17 September 2007 (UTC))
4. ThreeE noted that there might be copyright violations. You overreacted and took it as "slander/libel" and an attack. Not only are libel and slander not the same thing, and not only are they more of a legal concept not entirely applicable here, that's clearly assuming the worst. I never said you were malicious (which, incidentally, matters in a court in regard to libel and such). But your response to many of ThreeE's actions, however questionable, weren't ideal.

By now, though, what does this matter? You and ThreeE have both crossed the line many times. But I don't plan on blocking you, and a 1-2 month block for his actions is excessive (and something I doubt any other administrator would carry out, either). Let's refocus the discussion: What do you want to happen now? -- RG² 05:55, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I guess we're going to just have to agree to disagree, but I feel my honor and integrity were unjustly questioned. As for the definitions of libel & slander...

How is it a red herring when your own accusation stated, "posted inaccurate, defamatory text?" Look up the defenses to defamation, aka libel or slander. My responses mirrored that and included evidence I felt supported the possibility that he had no intent to defame but instead misunderstood the relevance of the information to the article. --Ntmg05 17:33, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

It is a red herring because the definitions are not really important. It was not inaccurate/defamatory towards me, but towards the subject of the article. An additional accusation of "sexism" was also not required and was unwarranted. That was all I meant. — BQZip01 — ^talk 18:32, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

As for what I want to happen now, I think I've made my desires clear on the main page. A block for a shorter period of time is also acceptable. Longer would be too severe, so, in short: more than 2 days, less than 2 months. A majority opinion anywhere in between I will gladly accept. — BQZip01 — ^talk 07:31, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

You accuse me of using red herrings? How about one of your own? How about how you're really mincing my words, picking out little side comments I make (which really aren't that irrelevant) in an attempt to discredit obvious wrongdoing on your part? And isn't a bit hypocritical that some of diffs you provided of ThreeE's alleged wrongdoing took quite a stretch to have been considered a violation of policy, but you're asking us to turn around and make a stretch ourselves in considering "FUCK YOU" in a better light? Please. I viewed you in a much more favorable light in the beginning of the content dispute, and even at the start of the RFC, but your attitude is taking a turn toward the absurd at this point.

I don't support a block of ThreeE at this time. After all, blocks are preventative, not punitive. And if we are going to be petty and needlessly punish him after he's agreed to try to not break policy anymore, there's no reason why you shouldn't be blocked, too. -- RG² 15:17, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I did not accuse YOU of a red herring, I said the argument is a red herring. That you typed it is immaterial. I am not saying "FUCK YOU" was appropriate, but I also don't think it was against the rules. I am NOT mincing words. You have made accusations against me I do not believe are warranted. I am attempting to clarify. I am happy to admit it if I am, but I don't think this applies under WP:ATTACK as you asserted. If you think otherwise, please explain. The function of blocks is to prevent future behavior. Since the last block for 3RR violation wasn't enough, a second block was initiated for another 3RR violation...and it was stronger this time beyond that, If you think my actions are out of line and there is no other option other than an RfC, I guess you have to do what you have to do, but I truly believe disagreement here over a 24 hour period certainly doesn't warrant it. — BQZip01 — ^talk 18:32, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

If you say that my argument was a red herring (when it was clearly not), how is that not saying that I used a red herring? "FUCK YOU" isn't against the rules? Your arguments don't make sense anymore.

All I requested was an explanation of your interpretation of WP:ATTACK. Apparently your interpretation and mine do not agree. — BQZip01 — ^talk 23:01, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Blocks are to prevent future behavior? Right. ThreeE was blocked for 3RR, and then said he would try to abide by policy. Has he done anything after that? Not really. How is a block at this point not punishment for past actions?

This block request is for repeated disruption and violations of several policies/guidelines, not merely one or two 3RR violations. — BQZip01 — ^talk 23:01, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

No other option other than an RFC? What are you talking about? I have no interest in opening up an RFC against you, if that's what you're saying, just an interest in you realizing that what you're saying is growing increasingly absurd. You've shot yourself in the foot over and over again here. You should try to take a break for a little bit if you need it -- we'll all be here when you get back. -- RG² 18:43, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I never accused you of wanting to open an RfC, I just stated that it is an option. I could also say "that what you're saying is growing increasingly absurd," but I don't think that would get us anywhere. What I am asking for is specifics as to how I have violated policies/guidelines in your eyes so that I won't do it again. I personally believe this discussion is growing out of control and is not in the right place (this is an RfC for another user). Why don't we move it to my talk page? — BQZip01 — ^talk 23:01, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Inside View by User:Upholder

This dispute started when the article was placed on the main page. At that point in time, it had been a Featured Article for a number of weeks. Here are the edits from ThreeE's first edit on the page to the time they were both put under a 12 hour block for violations of WP:3RR:

1. 00:36, September 11, 2007 Upholder m (33,856 bytes) (revert edit by disruptive editor to be in alignment with previous consensus.)
2. 00:21, September 11, 2007 ThreeE (33,861 bytes) (Undid revision 157089693 by BQZip01 (talk) Reverting. Modified lead is simply not true.)
3. 00:12, September 11, 2007 BQZip01 (33,856 bytes) (Undid revision by (ThreeE); I have done no such thing; these facts are asserted in the body of the text; this is the LEAD, not the body of the article)
4. 00:07, September 11, 2007 ThreeE (33,861 bytes) (Undid revision 157087772 by BQZip01 (talk) Vandalism. Previous editor is removing facts.)
5. 23:59, September 10, 2007 BQZip01 (33,856 bytes) (Undid revision 157087226 by ThreeE (talk); vandalism (refuses to read the entire discussion and that THIS was the consensus)) (undo)
6. 23:56, September 10, 2007 ThreeE (33,861 bytes) (Correcting facts. The previous poster is the 3RR violator. Leaving as-is is clearly not NPOV.)
7. 23:40, September 10, 2007 BQZip01 (33,856 bytes) (Undid revision 157083589 by ThreeE (talk); this is expanded upon in the text and need not be repeated here; again violation of 3RR)
8. 23:30, September 10, 2007 ThreeE (33,891 bytes) (added specifics on simulation ref)
9. 23:14, September 10, 2007 BQZip01 (33,856 bytes) (again, this is a summary of the text in the article. PLEASE STOP and discuss first!!! This violates the 3 revert rule, IMHO.)
10. 23:11, September 10, 2007 ThreeE m (33,889 bytes)
11. 23:10, September 10, 2007 ThreeE (33,888 bytes) (Indicated who did the simulations)
12. 23:09, September 10, 2007 BQZip01 (33,856 bytes) (→Complex maneuvers - added second reference)
13. 23:05, September 10, 2007 BQZip01 (33,836 bytes) (Undid revision 157078313 by ThreeE (talk) DO NOT VIOLATE THE THREE REVERT RULE!!!)
14. 22:57, September 10, 2007 KrakatoaKatie (33,762 bytes) (→External links - rm spamlink)
15. 22:52, September 10, 2007 ThreeE (33,907 bytes) (Reverting. See talk.)
16. 22:43, September 10, 2007 BQZip01 (33,981 bytes) (Undid revision 157076381 by ThreeE (talk); this IS referenced in the body per WP:LEAD; please discuss on talk page first)
17. 22:37, September 10, 2007 ThreeE (33,907 bytes) (Removed uncited computer reference. Feel free to put back, but with appropriate verifiability)
18. 22:35, September 10, 2007 BQZip01 (33,981 bytes) (Undid revision 157075247 by ThreeE (talk); this article is impeccably referenced IAW WP policy. See your talk page for more) (undo)
19. 22:29, September 10, 2007 ThreeE (34,004 bytes) (citations missing -- esp. that first bit about computer simulation...)

The dispute only grew from this point (as can be seen fairly clearly on the article's talk page) with ThreeE fanning the flames with comments like: "Whatever. It's not a reference -- it's an aggie promo video that doesn't even say what you claim it says. It is no different than saying "because I said so." ThreeE 04:09, 11 September 2007 (UTC)"[1] and "This entire article is basically a cut and paste job by a single editor from a aggie yearbook and a cheerleader's guide. As such, it needs to be carefully reviewed for NPOV and factually inaccurate material. It also warrants a copyright warning banner. ThreeE 05:23, 11 September 2007 (UTC)"[2]. To say either of those things, particularly the second, about an article that has not only reached FA status but was currently on the main page is not the sort of thing I would expect from someone interested in building consensus. Following that discussion, he said that he "would reluctantly support removal of the tag if no one posts agreement with any of these conditions in the next 48 hours"[3] but then continued to edit war over the tag and was again blocked for violating WP:3RR. -- Upholder 18:47, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

All true. Note that agreement was posted by other users though. ThreeE 19:16, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreement by other users that are wrong is still wrong. Your assertions are not backed up at all. — BQZip01 — ^talk 05:02, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Request a Ruling

I'm not sure how this works, but I'd like to request a ruling on this. I have admitted to and "served time" for the 3RR violations involved here. I do not believe I am guilty of any other violations nor that any preventative action is required.

I also pledge to:

1. Never violate 3RR again, and
2. Increase my sensitivity to consensual discussions on all talk pages.

I do not ask for any preventative action on any other user that may or may not be guilty of any violations either.

While we may still have issues on how to deal with the article in question, that should be an RfC without my username on it, although I think we are adults and can live without an episode like this again.

Let's move on. Please. ThreeE 23:35, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

In addition to your pledges above, you need to not demand that references be held to a higher standard than set forth in WP:V and WP:RS, which you are still doing in relation to this article: [4] [5] . There are additional issues beyond what you have pledged above. From the moment you touched this article, you were abrasive and unwilling to discuss your issues with the article in a constructive manner. That is not conducive to improving the article. Absolutely, issues with the article should be addressed, and that may well require an RfC of its own in order to resolve.. but your actions go far beyond just violating 3RR. -- Upholder 00:27, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I think you just want blood. In addition to my statement above and the words I just left on BQ's talk page, I am done commenting on this issue. I (we) have all dedicated to much of our time to this lame spat. ThreeE 00:33, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

You think incorrectly. I'm interested in moving the article forward, which is not possible when you are not willing to follow wikipedia guidelines or policies. You state you're willing to abide by 3RR, that's great.. but you need to abide by all of the accepted policies, and not make unreasonable demands about the references cited as well. -- Upholder 05:09, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I haven't violated any other policies. ThreeE 05:11, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Hey, let's leave this page be for now. BQZip01 and ThreeE have agreed on how to go about settling this issue. I don't understand what you're still trying to achieve, Upholder. -- RG² 05:12, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Upholder is referring to your requests for more information (one of your contingencies for {{POV}} removal) in direct opposition to WP:V and WP:RS). I suggest moving this discussion over to the talk page. — BQZip01 — ^talk 06:43, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Moreover, if ThreeE will agree to abiding by policies in WP:V and the guidelines of WP:RS, I would be happy to expedite revoking this RfC. — BQZip01 — ^talk 06:50, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

As User:ThreeE is continuing to dispute sources that are in accordance with WP:V and WP:RS ([6] [7] [8] [9]), and that is preventing all other progress in resolving the disputes related to the article, I think we need to revisit this RfC. This is the reason I was asking him to pledge to work within those guidelines and policies in addition to WP:3RR above. -- Upholder 20:43, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

There is nothing I have posted on the talk page that is inappropriate, without additional support, or subject to your editing. Shockingly, there are people in the world that hold a different opinion than you. Get over it. Move on. ThreeE 20:45, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

This is why we aren't getting anywhere. Despite instruction that sources are valid IAW WP guidelines, ThreeE continues to insist he is right and everyone else is wrong. — BQZip01 — ^talk 20:55, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

View from Clemson Tiger Band alum/Clemson Alumni Band member

Okay - I have scanned the incredibly long and (in my humble opinion) overly tempestuous Aggie Band talk page, with ThreeE's dog-with-a-rag arguments. I don't want to get mired down in a point-by-point mud fight about all the various debates, but I sense two underlying trends. One is the computer debate, the other, documentation.

For the first, I must cite the GIGO law. A program is only as good as the parameters wot was writ. I'm not convinced that computer drawn shows take into consideration the fact that almost all performances contain points of "fudge factor". For example, two converging circle drills having players turning to the rear on the same pick-point as they flow in and out. Any experienced band member knows that even when two players are supposed to TTR on the same spot, you agree which side of the foot you will split the difference with as you reverse (almost always on the right, in my experience). By the same token, in flow maneuvers across field, occasionally band members have to pass through the same axis.

It has been my experience, (yes - I know - redundant phrase) even on the hand-plotted drills I performed in the late 1970s, that band members rarely collided as you adjust your path to pass the other players you may only see once in a performance with which you share turn pick-points. In fact, it is a dead give-away that something has gone wrong in some rank if you suddenly see players pass you that you've not seen before during practice for a particular show. Watch a crowd in a train station or airport sometime. People instinctively "flow" past each other, even at right angles, without collision.

It seems entirely plausible to me that a marching unit with as long a legacy as the Aggie Band may have refined certain maneuvers that the computer can't quantify.

On the second point, performance art is ephemeral by the very nature of the live beast. Documenting an on-going history of halftime shows relies on sources that exist, no matter what the source. So what if a factoid is derived from an Aggie band video? Who else has a better vested interest in documenting the fleeting existence of a one or two-time show? Historical accounts are only as good as the available sources allow it to be documented. Herodotus gives tantilizing hints of events he had no direct knowledge of (And yes, he was a bit of a sucker for a good tall tale), but his history of ancient Greece is one of the few we've got. Ergo - he is the source. The same holds true for organizational history videos and accounts. Who else do you think is going to undertake the recording of that particularly archive? I have been visiting the Strom Thurmond Center's Special Collections at Clemson University to read old yearbooks and newspapers to document Clemson history timelines on the ClemsonWiki site, and I can affirm that my coverage of 1930 is only as good as the news sense of the editors of those publications chose what to report that year.

I have a question. Has ThreeE ever actually BEEN a member of a marching unit? Or is he just a gadfly?

My two pence...

Mark Sublette 03:25, 19 September 2007 (UTC)Mark SubletteMark Sublette 03:25, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your opinions — BQZip01 — ^talk 03:33, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Misleading comment

This afternoon, User:ThreeE updated his response to include the text "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."[10] While it is true that he did not put it there most recently, he was the editor that placed it there initially ([11] [12]), and was blocked for violating 3RR by edit warring over the tag. To say that he did not put it there is not accurate and in my opinion, very misleading. -- Upholder 19:36, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

concur — BQZip01 — ^talk 19:38, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Arzel's comments

• "You have an essence a WP:COI article..." In no way do I violate COI nor does anything within the article itself.
• "...which upon reaching FA status was questioned regarding some specifics, most notably the immposible [sic] nature of the complex drills." Fair enough, but the established quotes fall squarely within WP:V and WP:RS
• "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," Disagree immensely. My negotiations are clearly based on a desire to find a compromise within the Wikipedia framework and within the rules.
• "...as well as the wiping of any negative information regarding the T A&M Marching Band (MOB incident)." Throwing ice and shoving is hardly noteworthy. The vast majority of your source talks about the fans, not the Aggie Band. To implicate them in the incident when they weren't even present shows an undue bias towards the negative. I am not against negative incidents (the collapse of the band at Rice is a prime example of one I added)
• "And now he has canvassed what appears to be just about every Aggie in Wikipedia," I asked those I knew to submit an opinion; nothing more. If you will note on the main page, I was chastised by several.
• "...while failing to even notify me of this RfC, even though I have been a participant since the beginning of these disuputes." I am not required to notify you personally
• "...to bring up a RfC in what is really a dispute between two editors is very disturbing." I am trying to follow Wikipedia guidelines in the dispute resolution process here. If you have a better solution I'd love to hear it.
• "As a former member of the Aggies [sic] 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." <sigh> As stated ad nauseum, research isn't always easy. Just because you don't have easy access doesn't mean I have to provide it to you personally just so I can type things. Research isn't always easy and I have provided MULTIPLE places you can get the book and even made numerous quotes. Assuming a conflict of interest when there is none under WP:COI, does not assume good faith on your part.

IMHO your demands are unreasonable and an RfC is certainly appropriate. — BQZip01 — ^talk 04:53, 10 October 2007 (UTC)