In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment, 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: 23:34, 13 December 2005 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 14:55, 10 May 2024 (UTC).

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

Statement of the dispute[edit]

This is a summary written by users who dispute this user's conduct. Users signing other sections ("Response" or "Outside views") should not edit the "Statement of the dispute" section.

Description

User first edit was on 30 October 2005, which was an attempt to enter incorrect information into the entry for Civil Air Patrol about what the Boy Scouts of America Eagle Scout award is equivalent to [1]. Editor Vandy reverted this edit on 6 November 2005 with the edit sumary reading "Corrected mistake. The military considers the Mitchell, not the Spaatz, to be the Eagle equivalent. Check with your recruiter." [2]

User again attempted to enter the same information on 10 November 2005 [3], and was reverted by editor Linuxbeak on 14 November 2005 with the edit summary reading "rv back; sorry guys. The Mitchell is the Eagle equivilant and you need to have the FO graphics before you change those grades around" [4]

User again attemped to enter the same information on 17 November 2005 [5], and was reverted by editor Linuxbeak on 18 November 2005 with the edit summary reading "rv; please see talk page." [6]

At this point, user decided to enter the discussion assuming that they were right, believing that the edits were made in bad faith. The user also attempted to "throw their weight around" by announcing their claimed status within Civil Air Patrol and how they must be right "I have been a member of CAP for over 18 years and the Commander of a CAP Cadet Squadron for many of them and I can assure you that I am correct in my facts!!! Please do not change it back!!! Thank you!!" [7]

After attempts by Linuxbeak to obtain supporting documentation from this user, I entered the discussion on 29 November 2005 by reformatting the talk page and adding my contribution [8]. I was immediately insulted by the following remarks "Keep your personal comments to yourself. I called--did you?? {If you would like to investigate this matter further please contact CAP Nat'l HQ Cadet Program at (334) 953-7568 or via eMail at keasterling@capnhq.gov"

Linuxbeak now intervened as an administrator, with a message on my talk page about "Bullying from User:Braaad" stating "If Braaad continues to try to push you around, please let me know on my user talk page. I do not care if he (or she) is correct, because I want what is correct to be placed in the article. However, he or she has absolutely no right to try to tell you to keep your comments to yourself." [9]. After receiving warnings from Linuxbeak about his threatening tone, I attempted to prove just how wrong the user was once and for all [10].

After this, the user reverts to edit warring, deletion of previous comments he has made as well as warnings left by administrators, and verbal harrassment both on the Talk:Civil Air Patrol page (though the complete discussion is archived at Talk:Civil Air Patrol/Mitchell vs. Spaatz vs. Eagle Scout) as well as various user talk pages including User talk:68.112.201.90, User talk:Braaad, User talk:Linuxbeak, User talk:McNeight and User talk:GMHenninger.

User has had his edits reverted by the following editors:

Among the users many grand claims are that:

Evidence of disputed behavior

(Provide diffs. Links to entire articles aren't helpful unless the editor created the entire article. Edit histories also aren't helpful as they change as new edits are performed.)

  1. Talk:Civil Air Patrol: [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25]
  2. Talk:Civil Air Patrol/Mitchell vs. Spaatz vs. Eagle Scout: [26]
  3. User talk:68.112.201.90: [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37], [38], [39], [40], [41], [42], [43], [44]
  4. User talk:Braaad: [45], [46], [47], [48]

Applicable policies

{list the policies that apply to the disputed conduct}

  1. Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not
  2. Wikipedia:No personal attacks
  3. Wikipedia:Three-revert rule
  4. Wikipedia:Civility
  5. Wikipedia:Sock puppet

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

(provide diffs and links)

  1. Talk:Civil Air Patrol: [49], [50]
  2. User talk:68.112.201.90: [51], [52]
  3. User talk:McNeight: [53]

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

(sign with ~~~~)

  1. McNeight 23:34, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Grant 08:23, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Alex Schenck (that's Linuxbeak to you) 22:02, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Other users who endorse this summary

(sign with ~~~~)

  1. —Wrathchild (talk) 20:55, 27 January 2006 (UTC). NAVCRUIT 1133.101 seems to have been created to validate changes to Civil Air Patrol. (As if we couldn't read article logs and would use one article to source another.) After I added a WP:CSD tag on that article, I received a harrassing message from a sockpuppet on my talk page.[reply]
  2. Robert McClenon 18:49, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Response[edit]

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.

{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 (sign with ~~~~):

I have just seen MORE of McNeight's attacks against me---and I feel that I should just quit visiting Wikipedia at all. PLEASE cease and desist from sending me any more new messages; I won't respond if nobody posts anything about me. Now that is a great deal for everybody---what do you say?? Actually---don't say anything and I will just disappear. No comments, no sock puppets, no hassles; you just stop posting anything to this page and you will NEVER hear from me again. The fact the McNeight has taken SO much time to vadalize my posts and then write up pages of complaints is rather frieghtening to me. I don't want or need to be harassed in this fashion. 68.112.201.90 14:59, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's been MORE than 48 hours and I still see this page---what's that about?? Braaad 14:44, 21 December 2005 (UTC) QUOTE: If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 23:34, 13 December 2005 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 14:55, 10 May 2024 (UTC).[reply]

McNeight CLEARLY bears a personal and perhaps DANGEROUS grudge against me for not bowing down to his perceived superiority. I am still waiting for the resolution of this -RFC- will I be put in the stocks?? Or will McNeighjt just keep find ways to delete my user page---I susupect he is a sock puppet of 130.76.32.15 and 130.76.32.23 Thank you all for your kindness and generosity! Braaad 14:49, 21 December 2005 (UTC) aka 68.112.201.90[reply]

Outside view[edit]

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 (sign with ~~~~):

Outside view by McClenon[edit]

I became aware of this user because he posted an unsigned statement on Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment saying that the threats by McNeight were scaring him. He did not provide an appropriate diff. In further research, I saw no evidence of incivility by McNeight, but a record of incivility by Braaad.

Braaad: Please familiarize yourself with WP:CIVIL and related policies if you wish to participate in Wikipedia.

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

  1. Robert McClenon 18:54, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Outside View by user:OnceBitten

As an objective bystander in this matter, and having read the various comments, I really do not believe that user:Braad has an understanding of this process, the opportunity it presents for him to address the concerns and work towards a solution. User:Braad's most recent addition to this process demanding that the page be deleted, and his reasoning behind the demand indicate simply validate his contested behavior. OnceBitten 22:56, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Ya know---if you REALLY read this diatribe two things become clear: I was a rude fool and McNeight is dangerously obsessed with me. I am concerned about his cyberstalking of me and hope he isn't violent or in need of any psychotropic medication. Braaad 16:03, 27 December 2005 (UTC) —preceding unsigned comment by 68.112.201.90 (talk • contribs). [reply]

Discussion[edit]

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.

More