Wikipedia:Requests for comment/NE2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Shortcut:
WP:RFC/NE2

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: 22:10, 22 June 2007 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 22:28, 13 June 2008 (UTC).

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

Contents

[edit] Statement of the dispute

NE2 has caused disruption to all, if not some, members of WP:USRD and its subprojects by disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point, semi-incivility, and going against consensus to name a few.

[edit] Desired outcome

NE2 should be civil and follow consensus whenever possible. There is no evidence that the editor will change at this point, as he maintains his position of being allowed to ignore policies, guidelines, and consensus to do what he thinks is right. On the off chance he actually changes that would be fantastic, but he should be on a very short leash. There is really only one alternative to him not changing his behaviour.

[edit] Description

This user has caused lots of disruption to many users in the project. Most recently, he has launched an ownership drive (see evidence) on the NY 52 article, how his junction table is far more superior than the current one in place. This is a perfect example of him failing to go with consensus and invoking IAR at the wrong time. After reverts by users who went along with consensus, NE2 then went forum shopping and posted a message on W.marsh's talk page but he agreed with WP:USRD editors.

Another dispute happened on the State Route 1002 (Lehigh County, Pennsylvania) article, where one of the things he did to cause disruption was the exact same thing he did for NY 52. On that same article, when it was nominated for FA status, he would not shut up about how the article was named. The naming convention is outlined clearly in WP:USSH, with clear consensus that the article and other Pennsylvania Quadrant route articles should be named so. A prior discussion was held on WT:USSH, where the naming convention was being conversed on; NE2 was not present at that time. It should've been that time that NE2 could've explained his case, but as the discussion is closed and consensus agreed on that convention, it will stay that way.

The final link below illustrates a time where after SRNC, a heated poll that had engaged in a prior RFC, nine months of fighting, users leaving, ArbCom, massive move wars, and plain crap. Many editors did not feel like engaging in something as terrible like SRNC again, but then there was one editor who decided not to go along with consensus, continue the terrorism, and make the rest of USRD suffer.

When disputes don't go his way, he will forum shop/canvass to users that he knows very well. This is well documented in the forum shopping diffs below.

[edit] 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. an example of edit warring by NE2
  2. the archived SR 1002 FAC
  3. A heated discussion where NE2 failed to go along with consensus after something that had engaged in a prior RFC, nine months of fighting, users leaving, ArbCom, massive move wars, and plain crap
  4. SR 1002 disruption
  5. forum shopping on W.marsh's talk, episode 1
  6. forum shopping on W.marsh's talk, episode 2
  7. holy selfishness

[edit] Applicable policies and guidelines

{list the policies and guidelines that apply to the disputed conduct}

  1. WP:CONS
  2. WP:POINT
  3. WP:CIVIL
  4. WP:OWN
  5. WP:USSH
  6. (invisibly & possibly)WP:3RR
  7. WP:CANVASS

[edit] Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

See #Evidence of disputed behavior

[edit] Users certifying the basis for this dispute

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

  1. (→zelzany - fish)
  2. JA10 Talk • Contribs

[edit] Other users who endorse this summary

[edit] 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.

Uh, thanks for not letting me know about this. I only found out because Daniel Case mentioned it in passing.

I see a list of places where I have worked to improve articles. Some people disagree that those changes improve the articles. This is nothing new in a collaborative project. We all have to give a little, and there seems to be a compromise happening on Talk:New York State Route 52.

Also, do you mind telling me how you guys let each other know about this? I don't see either of you telling the other in your contributions.

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. --NE2 04:33, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
  2. Endorse. It's clear to me that the vast majority of NE2's edits and contributions have been done in good faith. I fully agree with Seicer that this just the pot calling the kettle black. Vishwin60 and Imdanumber1 particularly, and many of the other editors who have posted here as well, have also gone against consensus and/or lost their cool. Singling out NE2 is uncalled for. -- NORTH talk 19:37, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
    To you, it might be uncalled for. For the vast majority of users, however, they are growing tired of NE2's troll-like attitude, going against consensus, and basically being disruptive. WP:KETTLE doesn't make a whole lot of sense in this case, since you can be saying a lot of nasty things about me in my RFC (if there was one). NE2's disruptiveness really overshadows the good faith efforts that are made by a whole ballpark. (→zelzany - review) 21:18, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
    "Majority"? What, have we taken a poll (which would not be valid, since polls are evil) that states that NE2's contributions are "troll-like"? If anything, that is your general, broad conesnsus based upon your personal reflections, same as Vishwin60 and Imdanumber1. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 23:35, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
    Please do not assume that we've taken a poll on this. There obviously hasn't been one, but everyone has different opinions. Based on my observations, it has come to my conclusion that NE2 has disliked behaviour and styles. If others like JA10 and TMF step to the table and expres their opinions, you will probably know what's going on.
    In a reply to NORTH about civility issues, everyone that is commenting in this RFC has had civility issues before. We are not singling out NE2; it's just that there is a huge concern in his behaviour to others. (→zelzany - review) 23:52, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
    Perhaps you should read the above about NE2's description and his behavour. Per Vishwin60, there is evidence of FAC disruption and selfish reverts and failing to work and agree with other users. I don't know what you find about his disruption that is assuming good faith. -- JA10 Talk • Contribs 00:00, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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.

You know, I am so glad that some sort of action is finally taking place on NE2. He has been really frustrating to deal with, is incivil, and shows signs of trollish behavior. If you may see my RFA and Talk:1 (New York City Subway service)#Choice of redirects, you'll see how heartless and frustrating he has been to all within the transportation WikiProject and all over Wikipedia. He really needs to be brought down to his place. Rest assured, I hope this RFC will result in a positive action, and if no improvement shows, we will have to take this to a severe level: the ArbCom. —Imdanumber1 (talk • contribs • email) 21:00, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


Users who endorse this summary:

  1. Strongly endorse, NE2 needs to take a break from editing in Wikipedia. -- BWCNY 06:07, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
  2. Do not endorse: With so much in-fighting, and the various incivility in the past from various editors that have responded (i.e. BWCNY, it's pot calling the kettle black. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 13:46, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Excuse me Seicer, but you don't know NE2 as well as I do. If you see his past contributions, you will know that he has been troublesome to Wikipedia from the start. And I'm glad that action is taking place. He is disruptive and uncivil to the members at the U.S. Roads project, to the members at the transportation WikiProject, he has been disruptive all over. And you're right, BWCNY has had some civility issues in the past and I admit I wasn't great myself. But you shouldn't bite the newcomers because it is our job to help them learn the ropes to become a better Wikipedian, not drive them away. And from what I see, BWCNY has become a better Wikipdian because he learned from his mistakes and corrected them, and so have I. Has NE2 learned how to change his mistakes to become a better Wikipedian? I don't think so. And his contribution habits and his talk page archive messages don't look good based on what I've seen. Do you want to see improvements from NE2, or will you allow him to fuel the fire? I hope your choice is the first one. If this RFC doesn't fall through, then it will be taken to ArbCom. One user gone makes no difference. We have dozens of new users everyday that do want to learn the ropes and help contribute, who are civil and respectful to each other. If NE2 doesn't correct his actions and it leads to RFArb, so be it, that is what he signed up for. —Imdanumber1 (talk • contribs • email) 23:48, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Listen Seicer, I admit that I did terrible things with users who tend to don't agree on or trying to help the issue in the first place. I took a break to realize the mistakes that I done and trying to establish a good editor in this site. I have ignore the users who are trying to dismantle me. But with respect, I did not pursue an approach to attack the users who I am against with. I agree with Imdanumber1 (above the post) that he is still uncivil and disruptive with the users who are contributing in Wikipedia right now. I hope there is some action to give NE2 a time to take a break editing from Wikipedia and to learn his mistakes. -- BWCNY 01:21, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
      • I do agree that NE2 has been uncivil, but its become so meddled with various infighting and discussions that it can be hard to disseminate information. Just looking at the list of those who are disagreeing with NE2, it is those who are often at war with his editing style and etc. There needs to be more outside input. Myself, I am wholly uninvolved in the case (only warning you, BWCNY, for something long ago that I can't even remember what it was about), and I hold no grudges. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 02:15, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
      • Guys, I just hope that NE2 is reading this RFC. He needs to know what he is doing to other users and how his behavior is affecting others. —Imdanumber1 (talk • contribs • email) 00:24, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
        • Well, I kind of hoped someone at least notified him of the RFC. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 00:35, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
  3. Strongly endorse. I witnessed the argument over SR 1002 (I commented at the very beginning of that discussion, telling NE2 that the naming convention was decided at USSH). I believe that NE2 was out of line and making an argument in a place where it should not have been made. In my opinion, it was disruptive. I've reviewed NE2's history, and it seems that there are problems on various articles wherever NE2 is. I do believe some action needs to be taken. While a level of incivility has gone around, it seems that NE2 has done little - or nothing - to prevent such infighting. --myselfalso 00:16, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
  4. Strongly endorse even though everyone's had their moments, NE2 has way too many of them and it's unhealthy. This behaviour we are experiencing right now has driven away and upsetted many users. He has never even tried to prevent this kind of stuff from happening at the start, and I even regret it had to come down to this. Unfortunately, NE2's ways of edit warring, reverting, and incivility so he can get his way, regardless of consensus, are too much for most users to handle. Imdanumber1 worded the behaviour of NE2 perfectly in the first post and the following replies. (→zelzany - review) 00:12, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
  5. Strong endore. I, Vishwin60, Imdanumber1, Myselfalso, and BWCNY are tired of NE2's ways of not trying to work with other users and doing thing's his way. He has been a bad influence on the MTA project and USRD. Many users are tired of reverting and uncivilness. It's very clear that NE2 has violated many wikipedia policies, as shown above. So, I have no reason not to endorse, because I don't know how he's assuming good faith. -- JA10 Talk • Contribs 00:39, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
  6. Endorse. His editing habits do not foster a spirit of community, nor do they encourage contributions. alphachimp 01:17, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Outside view by Daniel Case

Having been the one to notify NE2 of this, I think I should weigh in. I have only gotten to work with him closely on the recent improvements to New York State Route 52, so my view represents primarily what came out of that.

I will first state his good points. NE2 is a hardworking editor with a vast knowledge of Northeastern U.S. road history. In my view, his edits, sweating sources and probing questions did indeed result in improvements to that article, an article about a road I know quite well, not in the least because I live a block away. It had no real history section before he got involved; now it has the best of any NY route article, IMO.

That said, I can understand where problems would arise. He seems to have a rather idiosyncratic relationship to policy and standard conventions (as he essentially admits here[1]), often acting boldly without real consensus behind him, sort of preferring to seek forgiveness afterward than permission before. His edits don't really contradict policy, whether Wikipedia or project, but they do walk right up to the edge.

For example: take this diff [2]. We have no set guidelines in NYSR as to what level of information we should put in the "Communities" box listing the major communities, whether incorporated or not, a route passes through. But we generally don't put both towns and villages/hamlets in it. Yet NE2 takes it on himself to do so. And again with the junction box: [3], [4] and [5]. While I do agree with him about the bridges being there (and we have no explicit prohibition on putting them there), I couldn't figure out why we suddenly needed to have towns listed for every locale a road passes through. Eventually, Polaron[6] was able to explain to his satisfaction[7] that there is a cultural difference between upstate New York and New England as to what extent the town one lives in forms a part of your identity, hence omitting the town in the former, or consigning it to a separate column, was in keeping with local practice, and we restored both the junctions and communities boxes to where they are now.

Then there was his idea to add an elevation profile graph to the article.[8] Despite later consensus to keep it albeit in reduced form, I still do not see what purpose it serves. But more importantly is the fact that we've never gone to the extent of having this sort of thing in road articles. He likens it to the map[9] that every road article is supposed to have, but I didn't see how that logic worked.[10].

This sort of response is not unusual. Here again he responds to a question about something he's added by turning it around on what's already in the article:[11]. When he explains himself, he seems to prefer pithy and terse statements that sometimes merely reiterate what he's done rather than attempt to persuade.[12] When taken together with the sarcastically flip replies such as [13] he gives when being confronted, one could hardly be helped but leave with the impression that he somehow sees discussion with other editors as beneath him, and I daresay that's what really rubs his critics raw.

I see it again in his response above. He just gives a general statement of how we're all trying to do the same thing, and sometimes we disagree. Well, yes. But there is no specific response to the charges against him as you see in other RFCs. The message he's sending is that this isn't worth his, or anyone's, time and can we please get back to editing? I feel the same way, but we have an RFC process for when that doesn't work out. And at least two people feel it hasn't.

That behavior is not always unusual in someone very intelligent. But what I do also want to call attention to is some perhaps very subtle WP:POINT testing going on. I note that the above outside view refers to some controversy over redirects ... I had found some of his choices to change my original usage of the full article title on the left side of the pipe[14], a little curious, as well as the creation of redirects unlikely to be used as a search term by anyone "Montgomery (town), NY", redirects that seem mainly intended to make the editor's life easier, and was told that was his idea.[15]. While WP:REDIRECT does say we shouldn't keep insisting on linking directly, I also don't see where it says redirects are for editors' purposes. And at least one time, he seems to have used one to indicate subtle dissent with the SRNC (as alluded to above):[16].

I would also go back to February's decision, by Krimpet and NE2, to remove the term "multiplex" and its descendant "duplex" and "triplex" from road articles in favor of "concurrency"[17]. Many of us saw these edits coming from out of nowhere on our watchlists and were like, who decided this all of a sudden. Revert wars started[18]. WP:NEO was on the duo's side, and eventually a short session on WT:USRD got the consensus and smoothed everybody's feathers. But note that Krimpet, a fairly new user at the time, learned a lesson which NE2 didn't seem to. When I put the NE2 editing NY 52 together with the one who did this, it wasn't so surprising.

To sum up, I think NE2 needs to perhaps work on some projects other than those related to transportation for a bit. He's a talented editor Wikipedia would be credited to retain. But at the same time he needs to learn to balance WP:BOLD with WP:CONS. Just because a move has policy behind it, or because nothing in that policy says you can't do it, does not necessarily mean you can just go ahead and do it without discussing it first. Daniel Case 07:01, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. Endorse this description, since it is very detailed in every which way. I completely agree that NE2 is a very talented and smart editor, however the behaviour he acts in is questionable to lots of users. (→zelzany - review) 14:24, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
  1. Endorse. This is probably the best view posted in the RFC. NE2 generally prefers to be bold than gain consensus. Generally, a lot of edits he make reflect his boldness. But no consensus is reached, and a lot of decisions brought up regarding his edits eventually die out, and hardly any consensus is gained. He needs to learn to be bold, but not reckless. —Imdanumber1 (talk • contribs • email) 01:29, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Somewhat inside and outside view by Rschen7754

Basically from when I have worked with NE2, he is a talented editor. However, I have had a few incidents where he has not always been agreeable. In summary, NE2 does need to work on being more cooperative with other editors, but I do not believe that it should go to the point of sanctions against NE2. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 00:43, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. Endorse: I don't believe that sanctions are needed against NE2. He's a talented and well respected editor who has many, many edits under his belt. Yes, he has several issues that could be dealt with, but this is not the way to go. If anything, this would be something that would drive an editor away from Wikipedia, and seeing as how we have lost a considerable amount of editors over the past year, we can't stand to lose anymore. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 01:36, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Outside view by Mitchazenia

I do not know this user too well and have not been involved in any of his conflicts, rather fixing part of one. That one conflict was over the New York State Route 52 article. As I have seen from links given on IRC's roads channel, he is, in my opinion, trying to fit in and be a useful editor. Anger issues ensued me for many of my 18 months in Wikipedia. I had a hot streak of anger and did horrible things. I see, that this may be a little overnecessary and could easily be solved by either a little coaching or a short wikibreak to relieve some anger issues. If he is willing to turn around, I will certainly become friends with him. Again, much of this view is based on my past history. No one should be driven away from Wikipedia due to a coupe of users wanting it. Its should be dealt well, not going over-drastic. I would suggest, NE2, if you want some help controlling these issues, come to me, I can certainly help you. ᒥᑐchpiłłangisaqtuq 21:50, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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.