Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Cumulus Clouds

In order to remain listed at Wikipedia: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 ~~~~. 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: 08:09, 30 May 2024 (UTC).

---

• Cumulus Clouds (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

---

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

Cumulus Clouds (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (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.

Evidence of disputed behavior

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:

[1] "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.

[2] "...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.

[3] "...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.

More information

[4] "Attempting to support the section header with sources that claim people have been intimidated or that the crowd and fan levels are high is synthesis and also cannot be included."

Saying someone was intimidated and then accordingly calling the venue "intimidating" in the article (falling in line with those assertions) is not synthesis, but accurate research. Furthermore, the articles explicitly described it as an "intimidating venue", ergo, no synthesis. Given these assertions, I doubt he actually even read the references at the time he made these comments (your opinion may vary). At this point, I feel his edits are becoming disruptive. By definition, this is disruption.

[5] "You continually revert editors without explanation on both Aggie Bonfire and Texas A&M University (here is a good example)."

Please click on the link he provided and read what I actually said and it is nothing like what he claims. Included in the edit summary is my rationale, "she has not yet been confirmed as the pres", so it is hardly "without explanation." In this instance, I misread something stating when she would be instated as the University President, but assuming a good faith edit, I double checked, found myself to be in error and corrected it on my own with no prompting approximately SIXTY SECONDS later. No additional evidence of these charges has been submitted and no retraction/clarification appears forthcoming. This kind of baseless accusation is damaging to discussions and my credibility overall within the Wikipedia community. I find it extremely offensive and in violation of WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL, etc.

[6] "Saying "this reputation was deserved" is your opinion and is unsupported by citation."

To the contrary, it is indeed supported by a reference. See above.

[7] "Adding a reference to the record at Kyle Field is unpublished synthesis of material."

This implication that I added an improper reference is ludicrous when the source actually stated that very phrase.

[8] " 'Intimidating venue' establishes a POV which I now challenge as being inappropriate and unsupported within the text."

Here is yet another example of ignoring what has been presented. According to Arbcom, this is, by definition, disruptive editing; ignoring the massive list of texts that use that specific wording from a wide variety and diverse group of sources.

[9] "I find it interesting that you logged out of your account to avoid WP:3RR violations which, I now realize, we are both guilty of."

Assumes I logged out of my account for reasons other than honorable ones (in reality, I can't log in from work), though I made absolutely NO effort to hide my identity (going so far as to add my signature block on the talk page). This also states I violated a policy when I hadn't (3 reverts in 24 hours is not a violation).

[10] " 'This reputation is well deserved' or any variation thereof is original research. It is your opinion on whether or not that reputation is deserved. It is unsupported by citation and should be removed."

No point in rehashing things. But it is interesting to note that he still won't read the given sources. See above.

[11] "Titling a section 'Intimidating venue' presumes that all the content beneath will concern who has been intimidated at Kyle Field, why and how often. This is not the case and none of these sources support that statement."

He implies this is the way everyone should see it. I take it differently ("oh, how is it an intimidating venue? Wow. Interesting"). No alternatives mentioned other than the single version which he has reverted to twice now.

[12] "You have attempted to assemble references which talk about the crowd noise, fan involvement and the win record of A&M on Kyle Field and with these things together, establish that the field is "intimidating." This is unpublished synthesis and original research. It is not a fact because you think it is. This is your opinion that you are trying to insert into the article."

Again, he still hasn't apparently read anything of what I wrote or the provided references.

[13] "Claiming that it is intimidating because nobody has declared that it isn't is first a logical fallacy and second a violation of policy."

What I actually said to invite this response was "Considering that reputable sports writers and publications view the facility as intimidating", it is perfectly appropriate to conclude it is, in fact, 'intimidating'. That some people don't find it intimidating has not been established by anyone." Deleting it because you personally don't find it intimidating is not appropriate." Given his extensive edit history, he either doesn't understand or doesn't care that what he is quoting is only an essay, not policy/guideline, despit his claim to the contrary.

[14] "You have not made any attempt to correct these errors and have instead continued to restore the version of the article you want to retain. This is a violation of WP:OWN...Please refrain from making any edits to this section in the meanwhile as they would qualify as further WP:3RR violations."

Again, implications that I violated two policies when, in fact, I did not violate either.

[15] Edit summary: "per the discussion at the RfC"

No conclusions were reached after six days, yet CC reverted to the changes he wanted and tried to imply that this was the decision from the RfC when there was no consensus on what to do and many unanswered questions were left open. This is also misleading.

[16]

This change is not a minor edit, but it continues to show an intended goal of deception/obfuscation to mask behavior.

[17] "Oppose on a wide range of important issues. This user took personal issue with edits I made to Kyle Field and, to this day, continues to undo any changes I make to that article so that his edits remain permanent. In response, this user (both as an IP and as user) made several edits in opposition to my own, which touched off a lengthy dispute between several of the editors involved. User is fiercely protective over articles he has edited and generally opposes the inclusion of any information he deems insulting or derogatory towards his alma mater. Before he made this RfA, user deleted image Image:TCEH.jpg, which he used to demean Texas Tech on his user page. User still maintains a list of demeaning terms for neighboring colleges on his user page...User selectively employs various protocols (like WP:AGF) when it suits his argument, but does not appear to have an appreciation of what these things mean."

Where to begin with this one. First of all, I hardly think a discussion on a talk page is "fierce". He can't possibly know what I think, so "personal offense" is an amazing telepathic ability. That a more accurate version of what he wants is available is the only thing I am reverting. He wants to remove valid sources and information and ArbCom has determined that to be disruptive behavior. "Lengthy disputes" are commonplace. It helps us hash out what to actually do. As for opposition to anything that doesn't make Texas A&M look good, there is no evidence to back that up in any way. This user has exaggerated and outright lied in order to defame my good name here on Wikipedia. While he is entitled to oppose me at an RfA, these falsehoods are counterproductive and serve to disrupt honest/open communication.

[18] "I don't think anybody who refers to a group of people as "sand fleas" in their userspace should be an administrator."

This is a joke about other schools in the Big XII and is meant as jocular banter in the spirit of a friendly rivalry. No one from that school has ever objected to it (if you'll notice, I even refer to our mascot as an inbred bitch...which she is). All I am saying is that, with no context, this is misleading.

[19] "he takes strong, reactionist measures when somebody does something he doesn't like to one of the articles associated with Texas A&M."

I do nothing of the kind and you are welcome to check all of my contributions. There is nothing in my edit history to substantiate this and is a lie, falsehood, misleading statement, or whatever, but it is an attempt to belittle me.

[20] "If he would simply revert the edit, that's one thing (though still incompatible with policy), but this user will go many steps further and actively seek to undermine people who have made those edits. This has a chilling effect on those editors and may discourage their contributions in this future."

I do not actively seek to undermine people who have made those edits, but I will oppose people who make disruptive edits, but only in ways appropriate for Wikipedia, such as commenting on the talk page, RfC, talking on their talk page, etc. If this has a chilling effect and discourages further inappropriate contributions, I consider that a victory for us all. If it simply makes then say, "perhaps I should do this a different way", then that is good too.

[21] "you have thus far ignored the input from both myself and the (few) editors who responded in the RfC."

This is another example of something completely false. I responded to both replies, but with no discussion from the contributors, I had nowhere to go with it.

[22] " 'Adding to the results' is another way of saying the information is unpublished synthesis of information."

Again, B.S. I am only stating what is already stated, but in a different form. I am simply adding the information already given in a different form. The two are related.

[23] "I've already explained why the title isn't neutral. You're trying to establish a POV section about the field with a bunch of use less statistics and, like Coffeepusher said above, it doesn't add anything meaningful to this article. Again, I'm not going to quote any of those policies at this point because I don't see what good it would do. I've already attempted to change the title twice and you apparently didn't like either suggestion and won't compromise so I don't see what the point is in me offering any other options."

The title is accurate and satisfies NPOV. That CC doesn't like it is irrelevant. The reason he doesn't quote policies is that he doesn't know them. The ones he continues to cite are already addressed.

[24]

What I actually said was that my user page isn't intended to be a discussion. It is indeed transparent and anyone can see what I type, if they wish.

Violations of WP:AGF

[25] "...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.

[26] "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.

[27] "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.

More information

[28] Edit Summary: "revert vandalism from anonymous IP"

Again implying that a good faith edit on my part was vandalism with no proof (violating WP:VANDAL). Furthermore, even when he realized his mistake, he explicitly chose not to retract or moderate such an edit: "And let me be clear that I had not read the talk page when I reverted your edits as vandalism...I will not reverse my last edit, however, because your edits appear to be retaliation for the discussion at Kyle Field. If I find that more of my edits have been reverted in other articles I will file [an WP:ANI] complaint against you immediately." I'll admit that I was finding his edits to be very disruptive and I wanted to make sure he wasn't doing this elsewhere (perhaps report it if other things are out of line). Most AfDs seemed well in order, but when I stumbled across this article up for deletion, I felt the WP:PROD wasn't applicable, so I followed the procedure specifically outlined in the directions. Apparently, he felt the procedure was not applicable in this situation, but I have no idea why. PROD states you can remove it "for any reason". So again, more implication that I am doing something wrong when, in fact, I'm following the instructions to a T.

[29] "I object again to your edits here in retaliation for the discussion at Kyle Field."

His assumption then was that I was retaliating for his inputs (and still seems to associate any contradicting opinion with some sort of retaliation for his opinion (see later edits)). Any editor can weigh in on an AfD; he does not WP:OWN his AfD nominations.

[30] "You have previously used those sources to assert that Kyle Field is "the most intimidating" venue. None of these sources back up that claim (specifically) and it is therefore unpublished synthesis. Also your use of statistics to make your case for the field being intimidating is your own personal research on the topic and thus unacceptable to include in this article."

One of those sources specifically backed up that claim. I was specifically not using statistics to back up the claim of intimidation, but direct quotes (again, see above and the talk page for more info on the quotes). Lastly, and most importantly, I NEVER said it was "the most intimidating venue" EVER! When I told him he misquoted me, there was no apology, response, or admission he made a mistake. To me, that implies that he still stands by such an edit. This is another example of him being uncivil. Misquoting someone by accident happens, but when it is intentional or negligence, it is uncivil under WP:TALK guidelines. It unnecessarily impugns the credibility of me and, quite frankly, I am not going to stand for it.

[31] "This user uploaded a number of images under his sockpuppet accounts to promote Paris in Jail: The Music Video and the actors and production company involved in that video. The images this user claims they took are all likely copyright violations and should be scrutinized very carefully."

The assumption here is that if a user violates a rule once, he is guilty of it forever. Instead of trying to prove that these are copyvios, he assumes guilt here across the board without examination of each instance; assumes facts not proven.

[32] "You didn't get your way, so you're going to file arbitration to prove a point? Wow."

I can't believe this. I can't even try to file an RfC, RfA, etc. without justifying my edits to him. Moreover, I'm not trying to do so to prove a "point", but to show he is a disruptive editor...but I can't even do that without being interrupted. He has absolutely no idea where I'm going to file it, but assumes I'm just going to go straight to the top as a measure of retaliation.

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive363#Can_somebody_review_this_and.2C_if_possible.2C_delete_it.3F

Please just simply read this and you will see the problems (I admit it is a long read). The "attack page" he mentioned about ThreeE has since been removed, but note the exaggeration to further his agenda.

[33] "After reading BQZip's comments it's become obvious that he won't take any action to delete it himself and there currently has no plans to use it for an RfC or anything else, so it serves now only as an attack page. I would ask that it be promptly deleted."

This ignores many statements to the contrary and again is designed to unduly put me/my actions in a bad light.

[34] "I don't believe that you intend to file anything, since this is a (trivial) content dispute that already has an open RfC at Talk:Kyle Field. Claiming that you may or may not file something in the future is a stall tactic to allow you to keep this material on that page indefinitely. I'm asking you to start the process now or remove it from that page. The bottom line is that it shouldn't be in your userspace anyway, even if it's a draft. Put it in a text file on your desktop if you truly intend to come back to it, otherwise file your RfC or delete the page."

Good Lord, assume I might be telling the truth at least 10% of the time. Quite frankly, I don't care what you believe. It doesn't matter.

[35] <no point in quoting it, it is too long, just click the link>

What he thinks is irrelevant IMHO. He should still assume good faith. Furthermore, one guideline does not override the other two, they should be used in conjunction. He seems to read one policy that supports his assertion and assume the rest are wrong, where in reality, they are used together.

[36] "Sorry, but I don't care what your job is, I don't want to wait until you're done with it to see some action taken with this page. That is not an excuse to maintain this list indefinitely."

I've made numerous responses to assure him the page will not be up indefinitely, but he persists in perpetuating the myth that I have no intention of filing something and that he has to endure this "abuse". His wants and desires are completely irrelevant as far as I am concerned. He has no intention of compromising , building a consensus, or working to improve an article; only to delete things he finds objectionable.

[37]

I did no such thing. I asked why you felt a need to respond to everything I say at every posting on every page. This is stalking, not a debate.

[38] "You're right, it's bartering. You highballed the offer with 45 days so that people would think 30 was a reasonable compromise. 3 hours would be reasonable for filing an RfC in the matter. 3 days is being incredibly generous. You keep trying to argue that you should be allowed to keep the page so you can collect evidence over time that would let you judge my character. Well, you are not the judge of me anymore than I should be allowed to publish judgments of other editors in my userspace. This is counterproductive in every sense and you are wasting everybody's time by arguing so hard for such a pointless goal. Please stop."

No assumption of good faith, insults galore, implies he's the high-and-mighty one who is generously allowing me to continue. Condescending to me. Calls my edits "pointless". Demands I cease. These are the kinds of posts that aren't helpful at all and assume I have the worst of intentions at heart.

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.

[39] "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.

[40] "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.

[41] "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.

More information

[42] "Do not comment on my talk page any further. Your repeated canvassing and personal attacks against me have damaged any helpful dialogue that we may have on this issue. I don't want to discuss or debate it with you any further. This is your only warning."

Instead of engaging in dialogue with a user, he assumed bad faith, proceeded to WP:BITE the newcomer, and prevent discussion.

[43] "If I find that more of my edits have been reverted in other articles I will file [an WP:ANI] complaint against you immediately."

Again, more threats to get his way. Violation of WP:OWN and he seems not to care whether or not I am personally involved in any of said reversions, but that he will associate me with such an edit anyway and file a complaint.

[44] "And let me be clear that I had not read the talk page when I reverted your edits as vandalism. Because of the ongoing sockpuppetry by User:L.L.King, any IP edits to this page removing the prod appear to be this same user trying to circumvent his block. I will not reverse my last edit, however, because your edits appear to be retaliation for the discussion at Kyle Field. If I find that more of my edits have been reverted in other articles I will file that complaint against you immediately."

Even after admitting it was not vandalism, he kept the edit in explicit contradiction of WP:PROD and assumed bad faith. He then went on to threaten me with administrator intervention. This attempted intimidation was a theme for many of his responses. As noted, I did not succumb to such tactics and have no intent to do so. Later he retracted part of the above statement, but only on my talk page, never noting it on the appropriate talk page

[45] (user expresses disbelief that his actions are viewed as uncivil/hostile...and blames me)

If anyone looks at the breadth of your edits, they will see you are a disruptive force.

[46] [47]

More exaggerations/lies

[48] "Here's a pretty good reason to doubt him at his word."

An insult designed to make it appear I am not trustworthy...unless you actually read what I wrote and assume CC is telling the truth. This post shows nothing of the kind. As a matter of fact, my post says simply that I no longer care about his opinion and I will be done when I am done. It does not say anything close to what he insinuates.

[49] "Before you do, you might want to ask the user why this page needs to remain on Wikipedia for the month interim that he won't be working on it."

He AGAIN implies I have no intention to do what I say I am going to do and there is nothing he posted or in my edit history to back that up. He makes me appear untrustworthy with no cause.

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:

[50] [51] [52] [53] [54] [55] [56] 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

[57] "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.

[58] "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.

[59] "...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.

More information

[60]

Removal of a valid source (just because it isn't as reliable as it could be), it doesn't make the information wrong. Moreover, it isn't controversial information and can be kept (this is in reference to the top edits, not the bottom; a filmography isn't necessary). WP:RS doesn't say primary sources shouldn't be used, but that they must be used carefully.

[61] "The information about your life may be put back in the article as long as it is referenced with a verifiable source, the qualifications of which are listed at Wikipedia:Reliable Sources"

Well, that's just great, except the policy is WP:V regarding verifiability, where it states "Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged..." It doesn't state that every single sentence must be cited using a reliable source as CC defines it. There are plenty of accurate sources that can be used within limited context. As an example, an article about a blog can certainly use such a blog to show things about itself. It would NOT be accurate to use a comment from the same blog to quote something about geopolitics in Iran. In short, the oversimplification here is too much and is misleading to a new user.

[62] "...it is my intention to remove anything without a source in this article..."

This level of opposition does not fall in line with guidance in WP:V. Simple uncontentious facts can stand alone (the sky is blue, water flows downhill, etc.) and do not require a source, though one certainly is desirable. If we did this with all articles, it would remove a lot of valid information that just simply hasn't been cited yet. A {{fact}} tag would be much more appropriate IMHO and would serve to de-escalate the conflict. Even if a source is provided from a primary source, the facts claimed here are not controversial or unduly self-serving and provide context. If a celebrity claims they are from Ohio and they put that on their website, you can use that website to show they claim to be from Ohio.

[63]

Adding a reference (especially one you deleted) does not violate WP:AUTO

[64] "that is insufficient for the inclusion of a pejorative term on this page"

...and this is why we have problems. This isn't policy, guideline, or anything. Because WP isn't censored, we have a lot of things that aren't appropriate, but this isn't one of them. The term Band Queer is the one most used on campus. We are proud to be called Band Queers. It is not derogatory towards anyone. Thousands of references were provided and I invited him to pick the one most applicable...he chose not to pick any of them and to just say none of them were sufficient...I'm pretty sure he didn't even bother reading the provided, references since they cover thousands of websites...

[65] "Forum shopping your grievances with other users over a content dispute is highly inappropriate and, again, not the actions of an administrator. You should resolve your disputes with other users -even if you don't like some of their answers- and you shouldn't start lobbying for administrator support anytime you don't get your way."

Characterizing my request for feedback from an admin I respect is not forum shopping. I am looking for feedback from those I trust. I am willing to be wrong and, since I was caught up in the dispute, I wanted to see if I could get some feedback to make sure I wasn't missing anything or see if I could phrase things better. Instead, I get an unwarranted accusation and discouragement from help/moderation (I took it as, "You can't ask for help! You must only do things on your own!"). Why can't I ask a fellow user for feedback? Why can't I do something to make my responses better. Apparently, in CC's world, I have to do all my submissions on my own and I can't ever change my mind or get a second opinion.

[66] "You cannot use the term "Band Queer" on this page, since it is being employed solely as a deregatory term. Please stop readding this text to the article."

This is another example of him making up a rule that I must follow: "you must XYZ". 1 - this term is used by a LOT of people, esp at Texas A&M. 2 - in context, it isn't a derogatory term. 3 - I provided many different refereces for this subject; all were apparently ignored.

[67] "*I've removed the reference because it is a perjorative term for homosexuals. While Wikipedia isn't censored, we're also not going to advertise neologisms that demean or defame anyone in the process"

Again, he clearly hadn't read the sources and had no interest in coming up with a solution, only controversy. The term is not a neologism and has been around for decades, (see the provided links)

[68] "You have to explain what this is, and quickly, or I'm going to ask somebody to remove it. Keeping an essay in your userspace about why I'm a terrible editor is totally out of line and I will report it unless it is deleted ASAP."

More threats. I do not answer to you and you can't order me around. This is a threat and an attempt to intimidate me. If you don't like the guideline WP:USER, then go complain on the talk page, but I am following the guideline exactly to a T. I'm sorry you don't like it, but at this point? Tough. I don't care if you don't like it. I can do it and I am doing it. Mind your own business. This was not an attempt to be disruptive; quite to the contrary (as I tried to keep it quiet until submission), but an attempt to defuse a situation and build an RfC that shows what I thought.

[69] "It can't be added to this article since it a) doesn't serve a purpose here and b) is an unneccessarily [sic] inflammatory remark. You probably need to let this one go."

As I responded, what I placed in there is a fact, not merely a remark. Whether or not it is inflammatory is beside the point. We have tons of things that people find inflammatory, but that are perfectly acceptable within context: Jap, whitey, fuck, etc. As to me "letting this one go", it seems to be an attempt at logic, but a logic that fails. If his argument doesn't hold water, then there is no reason to remove such an edit.

[70]

Sets his own personal standards and disparages those who disagree.

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

[71]

my edit

[72]

my second edit (w/ refs, as requested)

[73] (last one's edit summary is a violation of WP:VANDAL)

Assumes IPs are vandals

[74]

[75]

Pledge (designed to illicit sympathy, but made and then broken)

These reasons and others reduce his credibility dramatically

[76] "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 [77], [78], [79], and [80]

Emotional hand grenade

[81] "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"

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.

No desire to compromise or work on building consensus

[82] & [83] "How about 72 hours."

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

[84] "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 Wikipedia:REVERT#When_to_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 [85]

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 [86]. 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)

5. 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: [87]. 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. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 18:23, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
9. Yes, but don't use rollback other than to revert obvious vandalism. Stifle (talk) 12:09, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
10. The good thing about trouts is that you can always fry them up in butter afterwards :) Franamax (talk) 12:37, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
11. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 23:04, 20 February 2008 (UTC). Sounds like the easiest solution available.
12. I just don't see a case here. Raymond Arritt (talk) 04:41, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
13. Socrates2008 (Talk) 05:02, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
14. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 01:21, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
15. 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.

$Insertformulahere$