This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Born2cycle (talk | contribs) at 18:22, 4 June 2009 (→Response: my summary). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 18:22, 4 June 2009 by Born2cycle (talk | contribs) (→Response: my summary)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)In order to remain listed at Misplaced Pages: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: 00:35, 4 June 2009 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 02:45, 18 January 2025 (UTC).
- Born2cycle (talk · contribs · logs)
Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.
Statement of the dispute
User:Born2cycle has shown a pattern of disruptive editing, specifically wikilawyering and tendentious editing.
Desired outcome
Ideally, the user will understand the difference between a legitimate objection and using policy to block any attempt at gaining a consensus. An alternative would be some sort of creative community ban to allow the user to still contribute, as he is a knowledgeable user, but not to engage in an edit war or engage in consensus-destroying talk page discussions.
Description
In multiple recent articles, Born2cycle has repeatedly reverted changes to articles and gotten into lengthy article and user talk page discussions to justify his actions. The actions appear to be following Misplaced Pages's policies of reliable sources and verifiability, but are actually a case of wikilawyering, disruptive editing, and tendentious editing.
(An aside on lanesplitting in the US: it's the act of motorcycles riding between lanes of vehicles. It's illegal in the US except in California, where it's legal (to some disputed extent). Born2cycle believes this statement needs citations, but it's difficult to prove a negative- most states don't have a specific law to make it illegal, it's just lumped in with unsafe riding. Multiple editors have floated sources to indicate this 49+California model is correct, but the EXACT details are disputed by Born2cycle. Part of the issue is between saying "it is allowed" or saying "it is not prohibited". However, this is NOT a content dispute, it's just background on things that will be discussed as evidence.)
Evidence of disputed behavior
- Lane splitting: re-addition of sentence without source, note edit summary, reverted by third party, start of tendentious edits, threatening an edit war on a user's page
- Excessive wikilawyering on Lane Splitting talk page- not giving diffs, giving entire conversations instead: Talk:Lane_splitting#Legal_Status_Edit_War, Talk:Lane_splitting#Types_of_lane_sharing:, Talk:Lane_splitting#Proposed_merge_with_.22Filtering_forward.22, Talk:Lane_splitting#California_-_really_a_difference_in_kind.2C_or_just_in_scale.3F, "I can't believe I have to explain WP:BURDEN"
- Lanesplitting/filtering forward merge: "The vote of anyone who doesn't understand the difference between lane splitting and filtering forwarding should not be counted."
- California Vehicle Code - Bicycle Relevant Sections: 1, argument about length of quotes, "this is a special case", wikilawyering on WP:QUOTE, misunderstanding why page is headed to AFD, and note the pattern of responses by Born2cycle on the actual AFD discussion, especially 1, 2, 3, 4, "You represent yet another person", 5, 6,
- Misplaced Pages talk:Naming conventions (flora): long history, see below.
- Anecdotal evidence on user talk page: too many to mention- there's a very long history of users trying to discuss similar behavior with Born2cycle
Applicable policies and guidelines
- Disruptive editing, such as editing described under Wikilawyering and tendentious editing, specifically:
- Abiding by the letter of a policy or guideline while violating its spirit or underlying principles (from WP:WL)
- Asserting that the technical interpretation of Misplaced Pages:Policies and guidelines should override the underlying principles they express (from WP:WL)
- Editor repeatedly undoes the "vandalism" of others. (from WP:TE)
- Editor challenges the reversion of edits, demanding that others justify it. (from WP:TE)
- Editor finds (himself) repeating the same argument over and over again, without persuading people. (emphasized, from WP:TE)
- Does not engage in consensus building (from WP:DISRUPT)
- Rejects community input (from WP:DISRUPT)
- Refusal to 'get the point' (..) repeating (arguments) almost without end (from WP:DISRUPT)
Evidence of trying to resolve the dispute
-
- By User:Dbratland: archived ANI discussion
- By User:Tedder: can't we all just get along?, Offer of informal mediation, notification on user page, second request on user page
- By User:Biker Biker: Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User Born2cycle, tendentious editing and a flat refusal to engage in any sort of mediation (current ANI)
- California Vehicle Code - Bicycle Relevant Sections: explanation of why it doesn't belong on Misplaced Pages by User:Who then was a gentleman?
- Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (flora): ANI archive on disruptive behavior on WP:NC (flora)] (leaving this one alone, just mentioning it to show a pattern of notices on ANI)
Evidence of failing to resolve the dispute
- California Vehicle Code - Bicycle Relevant Sections: turning it into a policy discussion, questioning the need for AFD after an editor notified him first and tried discussing it
- Lane splitting: apparent rejection of mediation, another rejection of mediation semi-agreement to mediation, if it meets editor's conditions (only after being aware of ANI and RFC) forum shopping to WP:V
Users certifying the basis for this dispute
Other users who endorse this summary
Response
I simply want challenged material in lane splitting to be sourced, or removed, per WP:BURDEN. Is that asking for too much? In particular, User:Dbratland added the following statement, along with other material, as part of a large edit on May 9th, 2009:
- Lane splitting by motorcycles is generally legal in Europe, and in Japan and several other countries, and is illegal in the US except in California (see list below).
This compound sentence breaks down grammatically to the following individual statements:
- Lane splitting by motorcycles is generally legal in Europe.
- Lane splitting by motorcycles is generally legal in Europe in Japan and several other countries
- Lane splitting by motorcycles is illegal in the US except in California (see list below).
I have challenged the third statement above (repeatedly), and contend that a reliable, authoritative source needs to be cited for it per WP:V, and that the burden is on those who added it and support it. In contrast, those behind this Rfc, User:Dbratland, User:Tedder and User:Biker Biker have argued or at least implied through their edits that it is the one challenging the material (me) that has the burden, or at least a share of that burden.
I don't know why this is so hard to understand, but one of my faults is perhaps over exuberance in using facts, logic and reason to explain something to people who apparently just can't get it. My other mistake is probably relying too much on WP:AGF and engaging in debate in discussion on the talk page instead of aggressively excising the unsourced material from the talk page. I have a history of making that error, and I appreciate this Rfc for bringing that to my attention.
Despite all of my efforts that supposedly form the problematic behavior alleged in this Rfc, and the valiant recent attempts of User:SlimVirgin and User:DHowell to explain the gravity of this situation, User:Dbratland has shown over and over, and continues to show, that he just doesn't get it. I am at a loss about how else to respond, except to quote Jimmy Wales.
That's what is at issue here. It's real, and according to Jimmy Wales, it's very important. It's not wikilawyering. It's not disruptive editing.
Per this quote that statement needs to be removed, but I'm probably not the best person to do it. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:22, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
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:
Outside view
This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.
{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}
Outside view by Jc3s5h
Born2cycle is correct to state that the references provided do not support the claim that "Lane splitting by motorcycles is generally legal in Europe, and in Japan and several other countries, and is illegal in the US except in California...." Born2cycle is equally correct to claim that it is the burden of those who wish to keep the statement in the article to provide satisfactory sources; the burden is not on Born2cycle to disprove the statement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jc3s5h (talk • contribs) 14:07, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Users who endorse this summary:
Outside view by
Users who endorse this summary:
Outside view by
Users who endorse this summary:
Reminder to use the talk page for 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.