Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/ThreeE

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

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

message: ===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)
thread_title: Outside view

message: 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)
thread_title: Outside view by [[User:RG2]]

message: 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:
# 00:36, September 11, 2007 Upholder m (33,856 bytes) (revert edit by disruptive editor to be in alignment with previous consensus.)
# 00:21, September 11, 2007 ThreeE (33,861 bytes) (Undid revision 157089693 by BQZip01 (talk) Reverting. Modified lead is simply not true.)
# 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)
# 00:07, September 11, 2007 ThreeE (33,861 bytes) (Undid revision 157087772 by BQZip01 (talk) Vandalism. Previous editor is removing facts.)
# 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)
# 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.)
# 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)
# 23:30, September 10, 2007 ThreeE (33,891 bytes) (added specifics on simulation ref)
# 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.)
# 23:11, September 10, 2007 ThreeE m (33,889 bytes)
# 23:10, September 10, 2007 ThreeE (33,888 bytes) (Indicated who did the simulations)
# 23:09, September 10, 2007 BQZip01 (33,856 bytes) (→Complex maneuvers - added second reference)
# 23:05, September 10, 2007 BQZip01 (33,836 bytes) (Undid revision 157078313 by ThreeE (talk) DO NOT VIOLATE THE THREE REVERT RULE!!!)
# 22:57, September 10, 2007 KrakatoaKatie (33,762 bytes) (→External links - rm spamlink)
# 22:52, September 10, 2007 ThreeE (33,907 bytes) (Reverting. See talk.)
# 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)
# 22:37, September 10, 2007 ThreeE (33,907 bytes) (Removed uncited computer reference. Feel free to put back, but with appropriate verifiability)
# 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)
# 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)
replies: text: All true.  Note that agreement was posted by other users though. ThreeE 19:16, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Inside View by [[User:Upholder]] 

message: 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:
#Never violate 3RR again, and
#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)
replies: text: 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:   .  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: I haven't violated any other policies.  ThreeE 05:11, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Upholder is referring to your requests for more information (one of your contingencies for  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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Request a Ruling 

message: 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)
replies: text: Thanks for your opinions — BQZip01 — talk 03:33, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: View from Clemson Tiger Band alum/Clemson Alumni Band member

message: 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."  While it is true that he did not put it there most recently, he was the editor that placed it there initially ( ), 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)
replies: text: concur — BQZip01 — talk 19:38, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misleading comment 

message: *"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)
thread_title: Arzel's comments