Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Born2cycle

Outside view missing the point?
Isn't the point of this discussion editor behavior when making his case, not the merits of his argument? -- Brianhe (talk) 03:00, 5 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The viewpoint that a person can throw any old claim into an article and it is up to those who object to prove the claim is wrong is a threat to the entire encyclopedia. It is understandable that a person up against such an attitude might become strident. Indeed, I have wasted as much time as I intend to with holders of that viewpoint, and will not consider anything they have to say until they renounce the viewpoint. --Jc3s5h (talk) 04:10, 5 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Since this is a collaborative effort, refusing to consider what others have to say is counterproductive even if you believe you are in the right in a particular case. That's the whole point of the RfC. Collaboration and civility are required to arrive at a good product. -- Brianhe (talk) 04:47, 5 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Do you believe it is the responsibility of the person who adds material to an article to provide a source? --Jc3s5h (talk) 04:51, 5 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Since that's a well known Wiki policy I'll assume you're making a rhetorical question and not answer it. The point is, how do you persuade others that the policy is pertinent and that they should follow it?  We can't pick and choose our collaborators here, and taking an inflexible stand like refusing to communicate with them "until they renounce [their] viewpoint" or to deem others "unworthy to vote" on an issue is absurd.  Your only recourse in this case is either to be so obnoxious as to drive away the would-be collaborators, or to quit the project yourself.  The former is not acceptable behavior. -- Brianhe (talk) 05:09, 5 June 2009 (UTC)


 * It is not a rhetorical question. Some of the material on the talk page indicate that some of the editors involved (I don't recall which ones) actually think it is up to the person challenging a claim to prove it is wrong. It is also disturbing that no alternate wording (perhaps a close paraphrase of the source) could be agreed upon. It smacks of someone unwilling to budge 1 millimeter from the way he or she initially wrote the article, even though the claim in the article is clearly a stronger claim than what is in the source. Indeed, proving any claim of the form "X is regulated by state law; X is illegal in the United States" is a substantial research project and claims of that form should never be taken for granted. Such research is inherently original research, and one or more sources would be needed to support it. --Jc3s5h (talk) 05:20, 5 June 2009 (UTC)


 * "...some of the editors involved (I don't recall which ones) actually think it is up to the person challenging a claim to prove it is wrong." This is a straw man.  In fact, the consensus was that one side had met the burden of proof, which then shifted the burden to those challenging it.  Whether or not the burden of proof had been met could have been resolved via ordinary means.  Instead of grandstanding by pretending a normal disagreement over WP:RS is an epic battle against a threat to the entire encyclopedia.  To suggest that the answer is unknowable whether or not lane splitting in a particular place is illegal/unlawful/prohibited/going to get you a ticket (who cares what the difference is?) is the height of sophistry and the opposite of common sense.


 * And I repeat, the article stated it was only legal in California long before any of us started working on it. It was only after I began adding more and more support for that statement that Born2cycle began one of his several campaigns to debate the article.  This question is only one of them.  And the wording had been adjusted again and again and again.  The particular sentence in the lead of the article says (see list below) directing the reader to a large number citations.--Dbratland (talk) 16:13, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

(outdent, ec) Jc3s5h, I know that in my case, it wasn't an issue of not being aware of the 5 pillars or trying to compromise on facts- it was trying to get the wording correct. Born2cycle's disruptive arguments meant that there could be no compromise towards wording that (a) met V/RS and the (weak) sources available on the topic. Constant badgering and wikilawyering doesn't help gain consensus. As WP:DISRUPT says, disruptive editors avoid detection by the following:
 * 1) their edits are largely confined to talk-pages, such disruption may not directly harm an article, but it often prevents other editors from reaching consensus on how to improve an article
 * 2) their edits often avoid gross breaches of civility, especially by refraining from personal attacks, even though they interfere with civil and collaborative editing meant to improve the article

Having said this, keep in mind it is an RFC on user behavior, not on the core policy of verifiability. Etiquette is also a fundamental policy of Wikipedia, and both can be met without compromise on either. tedder (talk) 05:37, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Born2cycle comments on Brian/Jc3s5h disccusion above
(separating to be less of an interrupt to your discussion)

I agree with what Jc3s5h is saying, but I also understand and appreciate Brian's point. That's why even though per WP:BURDEN, and Jimmy Wales' urging (see my summary for the salient quotation), I could have simply deleted the unsourced/challenged material in question, I chose to simply add a tag. By the way, adding maybe two or three of those tags is supposedly evidence of how "disruptive" I've been ("Born2cycle began inserting endless tags").

I wholeheartedly agree with Brian on this point:

I did everything but "refuse to communicate with them". Arguably, that's how we ended up with this RfC. I'm beginning to think maybe Jc3s5h is onto something (after all, it's in accordance with Jimmy Wales' advice in these situations too).

Anyway, when my adding of the tag (with the reasonable comment, "Flat-out 'is illegal' claim is not supported - need citation or needs to reflect only what sources do say") was reverted (with a comment inexplicably characterizing what was essentially the application of WP:BURDEN as being pedantic editing and bordering on vandalism, I kid you not), instead of getting into an edit war, I informed the editor that I would wait a full week, to give them plenty of time to find whatever sources may be out there, before I added the tag again. And posting simply that they characterize in the RfC as "threatening an edit war on a user's page". Pardon my French, but WTF?

Considering what Dbratland started his section with, perhaps once he and I disagreed on the meaning of vehicular cycling (I know it only as the term used to describe riding a bicycle in accordance with the vehicular rules of the road, while he seems to believe it's some kind of philosophy - I think he's thinking of vehicular cycling advocacy and equates vehicular cycling with that), he became convinced that I was trying to push some kind of point of view in this article, and saw everything I wrote and did in that light. At some point I should have realized that reasoning with him was not possible, but his insistence on actually reflecting his POV ([safe as well as unsafe] lane splitting for motorcyclists is [always] illegal in all 50 states except California) in the article without sources was simply unacceptable. As I sit here I honestly don't know what I should have done instead of continuing to try to explain to him why that was unacceptable, which is ultimately all this is really about.

I think you have to look at the merits of the arguments in this dispute when deciding whether the behavior I engaged in was appropriate. What should I have done instead? Give up? Maybe I should have asked for outside assistance (like I finally did yesterday at WP:V) sooner? Maybe that's my lesson learned here... when things get so contentious, ask for outside/objective assistance, and back off. --Born2cycle (talk) 05:33, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Tedder, I don't understand...
Tedder, I don't understand why you believe that my arguments were disruptive, or why you think they "meant that there could be no compromise towards wording that (a) met V/RS and the (weak) sources available on the topic". One of my attempts at compromise was to insert this phrase into the article:
 * "Opinions differ on whether lane splitting is legal in these other states."

But Dbratland rejected and deleted it as being unsourced and in the RfC refers to is as a "weasel phrase". This isn't the place to argue the merits of that phrase, but my point is that I did honestly and genuinely try to find neutral/acceptable language such as what Jc3s5h is talking about, and I think it's entirely unfair to say that anything I did made that impossible.

Obviously I'm biased, but it was Dbratland and Biker Biker who absolutely refused to compromise. They wouldn't even stand for my insertion of tags on challenged/unsourced material, and indicate in the RfC that my adding those tags is evidence of me being disruptive, apparently not seeing how their reverting of a {{fact} tag, without removing or changing the challenged wording, is the truly disruptive behavior.

I even noted "need citation or needs to reflect only what sources do say" in my edit summary when I added that tag. Doesn't that mean I'm open to alternative wording? That's certainly what I intended to convey with those words. It's exactly what I was trying to achieve - neutral wording that accurately reflected what reliable authoritative sources said about the legality of lane splitting. I think Dbratland was so convinced that that was not my intent, that he misinterpreted much of what I did and wrote. I consider it my responsibility to make sure others understand me, and I obviously failed at that with Dbratland, miserably, but I still don't see what I could have done to succeed. --Born2cycle (talk) 05:57, 5 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with you, it needs to be cited. However, please look outside one specific issue and note a pattern that has emerged over the years. Perhaps the only thing necessary is a change in communication style, but your talk page, the previous episodes at ANI, the previous incomplete RFC, etc. all demonstrate a specific pattern of knocking down efforts towards consensus and community, not just on transportation topics, but also on naming conventions of plants and even cities. tedder (talk) 06:06, 5 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I admit I have a personality that lacks a need to avoid confrontation. I'm missing the "avoid confrontation" gene, if you will.  Unfortunately, this aspect is often misconstrued as me seeking confrontation.  Not true.  I really want to achieve consensus through discussion and debate, and I enjoy that process.  That should be obvious to anyone who has seen one or two of my posts.


 * So, yeah, I've gotten into some very long discussions and debates, but all have eventually come to a close (in some cases with my point prevailing like with the naming of Cork (city), in others not, like with the use of common names about plant articles, in still others, a good compromise, like with naming of U.S. cities guidelines, to name a few). Right now I'm also trying to save an article, by using discussion and debate, from an untimely demise at AfD.   But if there is something to be learned here, I need something specific, and if there is really a problem with my behavior specifically at Lane splitting, I, for one, would like to understand what it is.


 * Also, like I said in the RfC, no one approached me about seeking resolution about any "big picture" issues - only about the WP:burden issue, on which you now say you agree with me. So the "big picture" stuff is really out of scope  for this RfC, though I'd be happy to discuss it informally with you or anyone else on my talk page, which is where that belongs.   I definitely could use some advice and feedback in that area.


 * Anyway, as far as I can tell, the only relevant-here difference between you and me is that it's very important to me to see the WP:V policy applied properly at lane splitting, and you seem to be more willing to let it slide rather than to confront Dbratland and Biker Biker with it. Or will you now try to convince Dbratland and Biker Biker that it, and any other unsourced/challenged material in the article, and every article in Wikipedia, needs to be cited (or reworded)?  I do appreciate your time and effort to be fair and reasonable.  --Born2cycle (talk) 06:29, 5 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Ahh, I think we are making some progress. Both of us, even.


 * Let me start with the sticky bit, though. The big picture stuff isn't outside of the scope of this RFC. Keep in mind I came to you on your talk page about the lanesplitting article, not only offering to mediate, but also offering to facilitate someone else as a mediator, which gave you an option. Your response implied there was nothing to do but follow policy and stop "bickering and warring", with an edit summary rejecting the mediation: "still don't see need for mediation - explain why for hopefully the last time".


 * That's why this is not a content RFC, but is a conduct RFC. I think you and I are actually on the same side of the playground here, there's just a little difference in communication. However, it isn't an isolated incident, nor is it three editors trying to bully you into giving up WP:BURDEN, WP:NPOV, WP:RS, WP:V, or any other policy or essay or anything else. This is a pattern that started [3 years ago to the day, actually], though perhaps further back. It's a consistent behavior that seems to develop quickly when you reach an article. Again, one doesn't have to dig far back (farther than the current AFD and the lane splitting issue to see a pattern.


 * I'm hoping you will recognize the abrasive elements that are harming efforts, but your replies here are still on the verge. And yes, it takes two to feed a troll. I'm working on my part of that. tedder (talk) 06:57, 5 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Now I'll probably be accused of wikilawyering again, but the rule is clear:


 * Before requesting community comment, at least two editors must have contacted the user on the user's talk page, or the talk page(s) involved in the dispute, and tried but failed to resolve the problem. [1] (my emphasis)


 * The only problem that you offered to mediate (or facilitate the search for someone else to mediate) was the issue with Dbratland ("Mediate the question of whether or not the article should hint or imply that lane splitting might be legal in the other 49 states..."), essentially about who has the burden to provide sources.  I did not refuse that mediation, I simply explained why I saw no reason for it.  After I gave my reasons, not you, Dbratland, nor anyone else tried to convince me otherwise (though Dbratland continued to say he still thought we needed mediation, while continuing to ignore the reasons I gave).  There was never any offer to mediate any "big picture" issues, or anything else besides that one issue.  Now, out of the blue, there is this RfC about all these  "big picture" issues.  If that is the problem, no one contacted me about it on my talk page or anyone else.  With respect to the alleged "big picture" problem the first requirement prior to filing an RfC was not met.


 * Perhaps I don't understand something about RfC policy, but the only reason I can see to require contacting a person about "the problem" before filing an RfC, is to allow "the problem" to be resolved without having to go through the RfC process, bringing in all these people, etc. So allowing the RfC to cover any alleged problem with that users' behavior, whether he was contacted about it or not, seems blatantly unfair to me.  --Born2cycle (talk) 07:30, 5 June 2009 (UTC)


 * You're demonstrating right here what this is all about. Instead of giving a simple answer "Yes, let's mediate this" you want to spawn a whole series of other debates on just what is being mediated and what all the words mean and what WP polices mean.  And let's start new threads on the same question on three different User:talk pages and a couple help forums too.  Regardless of your conscious intent, how is anyone supposed to work with you?--Dbratland (talk) 16:48, 5 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not going to apologize for asking for clarity about what a supposed dispute is about.


 * Throughout the discussions I requested, repeatedly, that we all focus on article content, and what is appropriate for the article to say from a neutral point of view as supported by the sources. Everything else, including pointless mediation about whether WP:BURDEN applies to lane splitting (which you hopefully realize now, but apparently did not at the time) and this RfC, is a disruption. But it's what you felt was needed, so here we are.  I'd much rather be doing something else, believe me.  --Born2cycle (talk) 17:19, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Dbratland - ordinary means?
Dbratland, perhaps finally starting to realize that reflecting his position in the article is inappropriate because it is not supported by the sources, states above: Whether or not the burden of proof had been met could have been resolved via ordinary means. Does Dbratland mean ordinary means like explaining why the burden of proof had not been met?

Or does he mean ordinary means like adding a tag to challenged/uncited material in the article?

I tried ordinary means, for weeks. I really, really tried. I did not engage in edit warring. In the name of civility, I did not even revert the removal of a legitimately placed  tags that I had inserted. When statements that I had inserted were challenged and removed, and I mistakenly believed they could be in there without source because they were stating something was unknown (now I understand that if challenged even such statements should be removed), I did not try to reinsert them. I tried normal means of discussion and debate to come to a consensus.

I'm still trying ordinary means, and, finally, with the help of others saying exactly the same thing, even the person starting this RfC ("I agree with you, it needs to be cited." -- see above), Dbratland finally seems to be getting it. Ordinary means are working, finally.

Yet despite all that, use of these ordinary means is considered to be "pedantic" "disruptive", "tendentious" and even "wikilawyering" and even supposedly justifies filing ANIs and RfCs against the person using these ordinary means. --Born2cycle (talk) 17:19, 5 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I disagree, for reasons already stated. I'll let others decide for themselves.--Dbratland (talk) 17:39, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

doubts about Tedder
I don't mind the blame cannon being pointed at me, but in regards to this comment: "Re: 'doubts about Tedder' - apparently how Tedder got involved, from his talk page: 'Someone needs a good wiki-slap and none of the admins seem willing to do this. It really brings Wikipedia into disrepute IMHO when this sort of pedantry is allowed to carry on unchecked.' [1] --Born2cycle (talk) 19:56, 5 June 2009 (UTC) |undefined"

Keep in mind that comment was NOT said by me, it was said on my talk page. And we (tedder, born2cycle) had several interactions before this- the first one I'm aware of on the lanesplitting article was very neutral.

Finally, I filed the RFC in response to an ANI thread created by someone other than myself. I attempted to mediate, but also offered to bring in someone else as a mediator. I didn't see myself being as involved on the Lane splitting article as some have indicated since I filed this RFC- I suppose my impression of my own article involvement is wrong. tedder (talk) 20:23, 5 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Indeed, those were the words of one of the two endorsers of your "Statement of the dispute" in this RfC - User:Biker Biker. That makes it so much less suspicious...


 * So, what, if not that comment from one of the four coincidental Aerostich collaborators (see below) on your talk page, made our "neutral" interaction go south for you?  When I questioned what there was to mediate after you offered?  When I explained my reasoning about why I thought there was no point in mediating the content dispute Dbratland brought up?  Or when you decided to file an RfC not about the content dispute you had offered to mediate, but about my behavior?  I know when it went south for me... --Born2cycle (talk) 22:41, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Probably just an odd coincidence...
I've been trying to figure what this is really all about and have discovered that all of the antagonists involved in this RfC about me - User:Tedder, User:Dbratland (certifiers), User:Biker Biker, User:Brianhe (only endorsers at this time), - have something else odd in common - they are four of the 10 or so total editors that have ever edited the article Aerostich. Three of these are the only three that have ever edited Aerostich more than once.

In particular, since March 1, 2009, there have been 10 edits to the Aerostich article, and all but one of those those 10 edits were by one of these four antagonists in this matter.

Probably just a coincidence, but it is a bit interesting. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:17, 5 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Um, dude, you've heard of a little thing called Wikipedia:WikiProject Motorcycling? I can speak for all 23 members of the secret international Aerostich cabal when I say I am sick and tired of having to answer these baseless innuendos about our entirely nonexistent plans to change a thing after we rule the world which we aren't working on at all.--Dbratland (talk) 22:44, 5 June 2009 (UTC)


 * No one, certainly not me, ever requires or even expects you to respond to any of my posts. Each and every post is your choice, dude.  I, however, am apparently expected and practically required to respond to this frivolous and incredibly disruptive RfC you four guys have created ("In most cases, editors named in an RfC are expected to respond to it.  The Arbitration Committee considers a response or lack of it, as well as the comments and endorsements from the community, if the matter ends up being escalated to arbitration.")


 * And it's hardly baseless to point out the odd coincidence that the four of you who are behind this RfC also happen to comprise the 5% (4 out of 80) of the Motorcycling project that is responsible for 90% of the edits at Aerostich in the last 3+ months, but any innuendo inferred from that is entirely within your mind.  --Born2cycle (talk) 23:08, 5 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Just adding a little levity. Sorry.  If you investigate further you might find that the same four editors are responsible for the majority of edits recently on every article in the Motorcycling project scope, not just Aerostich.  Being the the four project members who happen to have been active at all during the last few months.  But if you want to delve into the Aerostich connection further, be my guest.--Dbratland (talk) 23:30, 5 June 2009 (UTC)


 * No need. That's a satisfactory explanation, not that one was necessary.  Thanks.  --Born2cycle (talk) 00:07, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Extremism in defense of WP:V is not exactly a virtue.
There appear to be some who think that because they agree with Born2cycle on one of the several issues mentioned here, and because that issue happens to be WP:V, that can serve as a blanket justification for all manner of disruptive editing.

You should consider that any time two parties disagree on a matter of WP:V, both of them think they are right. Both think they are defending a core principle. Both parties could, if they allowed themselves, paint the other side as barbarians tearing down the very foundation of WP itself. This would be a straw man.

Why can't I be the one who is wrapped in the mantle of defending core principles? After all, in my view, Born2cyle is violating WP:V by inserting the claim that "opinions differ," yet reliable sources only exist for one opinion and not the other. Isn't Born2cycle the one trying to claim a loophole exists in the laws of 10 US states, without providing any source who says there is any such loophole? And is not Born2cycle the one who removes citations and replaces them with fact tags? Does this not make him the one who is an existential threat to Wikipedia and all that it stands for? Should I show the least restraint in trying to stop him?

And if consensus says I'm wrong, why can't I carry on as if consensus meant nothing, repeating my failed arguments ad nausaeum and trying more and more new ways to raise objections and ever more venues to debate the point ?

This might make sense if WP:V were the one and only thing that mattered, but there is also a code of conduct that includes an obligation to build consensus and avoid edit wars, not to engage in forum shopping, and to gracefully accept that you don't win them all. That doesn't mean you have to give up if you still think you're right, but you need to bide your time and take up your cause in an appropriate way.

Can you imagine how it would be if every dispute over WP:V led to both sides behaving in the way Born2cycle does? --Dbratland (talk) 23:03, 5 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Wow, you really don't see the difference?
 * You write: After all, in my view, Born2cyle is violating WP:V by inserting the claim that "opinions differ," yet reliable sources only exist for one opinion and not the other. You are again imagining dispute where there is none, a recurring theme with you.


 * First, only challenged or likely to be challenged statements need to be sourced. When I inserted the "opinions differ" statement (actually, "Whether such a citation will hold up to a challenge in court depends on the particular situation."), I honestly did not think it would be challenged.  I mean, do you honestly believe that whether any reckless or unsafe behavior citation will hold up to a court challenge doesn't depend on the particular situation?   That's the thing about these types of violations - they are inherently subjective, especially compared to more black & white violations like running a red light or lane splitting (where lane splitting is explicitly banned).  But it was challenged, and removed (by you), with the comment: "Bikers have been trying to beat tickets like this in court for decades. They lost. That's why reliable sources make crystal clear it is illegal in 49 states." [1]


 * At that point I thought you simply didn't understand the statement or something, so I did reinsert it, with an explanatory comment that gets to the core of our disagreement: "They ALWAYS lose? Even when lane splitting safely? Please provide a source." [2] I mean, some or perhaps even most bikers have been trying to beat tickets like this, and maybe some, most or even all lost.  But we don't know about that.  Certainly the sources don't tell us, and the sources do not make it "crystal clear that lane splitting is illegal in 49 states".  None of this was about WP:V.


 * I think we agree that a material challenge should be comprised of both a genuine speculation about veracity, as well as a lack of sourcing. Anyway, once the statement was deleted by a Arthur we began discussing/debating this, but I did not attempt to reinsert it, I did not accuse you of disruption, nor did I threaten you with ANI or RfCs.  It was pretty standard and tame stuff, if you ask me.


 * On the other hand, when I challenged unsourced material that you had added to the intro, a statement that I hope is clear to you now about which I truly had genuine veracity doubts (as do others), all I did was insert a tag and you guys reverted it and went totally ballistic.  But since you were insisting that the challenger (me) had the burden to provide sources (I assume I do not have to dig up the multiple diffs that establish that fact again), a fundamental violation of WP:V, I did not back off.  I felt this was an important issue and couldn't believe you felt you did not need to source material that was challenged.


 * I sought to work out the differences through discussion and debate. You decided to see that as disruptive, and, amidst multiple pleadings on my part to focus on article content and following policy guidelines, you engaged in truly disruptive behavior (repeated calls for mediation about trivial matters, frivolous ANIs and finally this absurd RfC).


 * You also wrote: there is also a code of conduct that includes an obligation to build consensus and avoid edit wars, not to engage in forum shopping, and to gracefully accept that you don't win them all.  Yes, there is such a code of conduct, and I strongly resent the implication that I have violated any of it.


 * We never had an edit war. I think the only time I ever inserted something more than once was the situation I just mentioned.  I did avoid edit wars.


 * I did not engage in forum shopping. forum shopping is when one authority says no, and you go to another authority looking for an answer that agrees with you.  The classic analogy is asking Mom after Dad says no (or vice versa).  In the last few days I did go to several venues to ask for help, because this was getting so out of control and I realized I needed it, but that's not forum shopping if that's what you're referring to.


 * I'm not sure if "gracefully accepting you don't win them all" is actually a guideline, much less a policy on the level of WP:V to which you are comparing all of this, but I still don't understand why you didn't proceed with the merge for which you established consensus. I still think it's a mistake, but I can't understand why my saying that (or anything else) else inhibits you in any way whatsoever with respect to doing anything.


 * Speaking of "gracefully accepting you don't win them all", how about removing that unsourced challenged material in the intro of this article, as soon as it is unlocked? --Born2cycle (talk) 00:05, 6 June 2009 (UTC)


 * A crude edit war consists of repeatedly clicking the Undo button. Skilled disruptive editors know very well not to make that blunder.  Instead, you repeat the same edit -- introducing an idea or a statement that has failed to gain consensus, in different parts of the article, using different wording, sometimes by adding fact tags, sometimes by removing citations.  You use a wide range of tools, but they all have the same effect:  the article goes back and forth between two fundamental versions in spite of consensus that it should not.


 * I was all set to proceed with the merge once the others stated they felt consensus was reached, and I will do so when the page is unlocked. I only didn't want to expend a lot of effort on the job if it was likely to simply be rolled back.--Dbratland (talk) 00:22, 6 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh! You know, I realize now that it all it comes down to this... ever since our little disagreement about vehicular cycling (which in retrospect was about you making the common error of conflating it with vehicular cycling advocacy, which is more like the movement or philosophy to which you were referring as vehicular cycling), you have failed to assume good faith about much of what I said and did.  You decided I was a jerk or something with an ax to grind, and prejudged all my actions in that light.  Only that explains why you saw my genuine efforts to improve this article in terms of more accurately reflecting what the sources say (including saying what the sources don't say,  where appropriate, if it's not challenged) as "introducing an idea or a statement that has failed to gain consensus, in different parts of the article, using different wording, sometimes by adding fact tags, sometimes by removing citations".


 * What you failed to realize (still, apparently, to this very moment) is that any WP editor, including me, and even an anonymous IP with no apparent history and an ax to grind, can challenge unsourced material in an article, even if it is supported by consensus (if you want to count the opinion of the Aerostich Gang as consensus), and the sourcing burden is entirely on those who inserted it and support it, period. Further, as long as that burden is not met, the challenger has the right to tag, edit into compliance with sources, or even aggressively delete the material in question.  Please confirm that you at least realize and appreciate this now.


 * Not fully understanding the implications of WP:BURDEN, coupled with continuing to fail to abide by WP:AGF (despite my reminder/request that you to do so as far back as May 21), is why you saw my legitimate insertion of tags and other edits I made consistent with WP:V, as being disruptive and problematic.  Well, sir, you were wrong.  Plainly wrong.  Your apparent inability to understand WP:BURDEN (despite countless explanations) and refusal to abide by WP:AGF (the very purpose of which is specifically to avoid misunderstandings like this) caused you to fail to distinguish, and appreciate the difference between, disruptive anti-consensus editing from legitimate edits made in concert with WP:V.  But this whole ANI/RfC fiasco which resulted from that error might all be worth it, if you finally realize what happened, and don't do it again, ever again, so that WP life will be much more congenial, for you and everyone you encounter.  --Born2cycle (talk) 02:34, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Just to get my point in here since I saw the subheading I most disagree with. Not relating to this case but to the encyclopedia as a whole I think extremism in the defense of WP:V IS a virtue.  As an encyclopedia that anyone can edit we are only as reliable as the sources our statements come from.  Unsourced statements that are under dispute shouldn't be in here at all. Either find references for them from reliable sources or get them out of here. If references can't be found but someone thinks it should still be included than leave it out until some version of the statements can be inserted when then have references.   Them  From  Space  03:50, 6 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Good point, Themfromspace. Indeed, extremism in the name of WP:V is a virtue, and that's another way to describe the point that Dbratland seems to continue to miss.  I must say that when I first got into this discussion a little over a month ago I did not understand and appreciate WP:V as fully as I believe I do now.  Another lesson learned, and a very important one. --Born2cycle (talk) 04:10, 6 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Dbratland, sorry, the part above Themfromspace's comment that I posted turned into something of a rant and came out harsher than it should have, but this has been one of the most disappointing WP experiences I've ever had, and seems so easily preventable. I let some heat out through my finger tips, sorry. Please accept this cookie as a token of my apology.



Born2cycle has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!


 * DHowell just wrote wisely in his outside view... "when I focused the discussion on the actual content and ignored the comments on each other's behavior, I was able to provide a solution to the main dispute which both parties now appear to agree to."


 * I completely agree with that. Focusing on content, and, ignoring who is making the edits is key.  Here is a good rule of thumb, I think.  If you find yourself in such a position again, imagine that each individual act is being done by some other person than the one who has roiled you so.  Would you react the same way?  That's what being neutral and abiding by WP:AGF ultimately means.


 * As an example, go back to the incident of where I inserted the {{fact} tag in the intro. What if an anonymous IP, or DHowell, or Tedder had made the exact same insertion?   Do you think your Biker Biker buddy would have reverted it, and with such anger, referring to it as pedantry?  Do you think you would have reacted as strongly to it?  Now think about this: why the difference?  Either the insertion of the tag is fair and legitimate, or it's not, and that determination should have nothing to do with who is doing the edit, and that goes for any edit.  Judge each edit independently and objectively and you will be insulated from making the kinds of errors I believe you made here, which caused our interaction to be so contentious.


 * I suppose it's theoretically possible to miss a truly clever tedentious editor whose true aim is disruption if you focus only on individual edits, look at them individually and objectively, and ignore the "big picture" (which is what I'm suggesting should be done), but I seriously doubt anyone is really that good. That is, if their motivation is truly disruption, then individual edits will, sooner or later, reveal his true aims.  If the only objection you have to an editor is your overall perception (or "the big picture" as Tedder says), but all the individual edits and actions are all okay, then it's your perception that is almost certainly what is off kilter.


 * Take it or leave it, though I am curious if this resonates positively with you at all. I certainly hope it does.  Enjoy the cookie. :-) --Born2cycle (talk) 04:10, 6 June 2009 (UTC)


 * ThemFromSpace, I think you've missed my point in a profound way. The assumption you're making is that there is no disagreement over which statements are unsourced and which are not.  You are treating this as a dispute between those who want to include unsourced statements and those who don't.  That is a straw man.  It's wonderful to be fanatical about removing unsourced statements, but what if two parties disagree with one another over which statements are unsourced and which have the support of reliable sources?  Are you serious in suggesting that both parties ought to wage unrelenting jihad?


 * Have you ever been wrong before, ThemFromSpace? Do you think you will ever be wrong in the future?  And if you are, do you wish to cling to your error to the bitter end?  Conversely, if you find yourself in a disagreement over what is and is not unsourceed with someone who follows your extremist philosophy, how will you ever resolve it?--Dbratland (talk) 03:53, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I never suggested unrelenting jihad, please don't put words in my mouth. My answer is found above. If there's a debate about sourcing, the material should be removed while the debate is taking place. If consensus can't be reached at first than expand the discussion with noticeboards, RfCs, etc. Until consensus determines that the material is adequatly sourced or doesn't need sources (like statements of common fact) the material shouldn't be readded. I think this is true of any material that might potentially violate one of our policies.   Them  From color="black">Space  04:28, 7 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually, a lesson I'm taking away from this whole experience is that even banal statements of facts need sourced citations, if they are challenged, even if the veracity of the statement is not really being challenged. --Born2cycle (talk) 04:01, 8 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Dbratland, we had other discussions and disagreements to be sure, but it only got out of control when you guys started even reverting the insertion of tags as being "pedantic editing" and "vandalism", putting the burden for finding sources on me, even when I was the one challenging unsourced material in the article, and characterizing "the use of  tags or similar means" to be illegimate because they "undermine" your unsourced POV ("the basic claim that you can lane split in California but not the other states").  And, no, by the way, consensus does not an inline citation make (which is what WP:BURDEN requires for challenged unsourced material, not "consensus support").


 * And don't forget, it was you that named this section, "Extremism in defense of WP:V is not exactly a virtue". Yes, it is a virtue.  That's the whole point of WP:BURDEN.  Even if the one challenging the material is wrong, the worst that can happen is that the material gets removed until a source for it can be found.  The Wikipedia community would rather have that, than to risk having incorrect unsourced material in the articles.  What you just can't accept is that this is what it has been about for me all along, even when I explained it to you in detail on your own user talk page:


 * The other point that is still unbelievably being missed here is that Wikipedia has well-honed policy and guidelines specifically designed to avoid disputes escalating to the unrelenting jihad you are now expressing concern about, and to handle the cases where one or both sides thinks they are right, but are actually wrong. The reason the policies failed in this case is only because you and your buddies did not abide by them.  For you, it became a jihad, and I was the target.  It was not that you could do no wrong, it was that in your eyes I could no right (not even insert a  tag to identify challenged unsourced material that even Tedder now admits needed citation).  --Born2cycle (talk) 05:48, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Two to tango?
I'd like to make some lemonade out of these lemons... to that end, I have a question about what User:Mendaliv has written: "No matter who the correct or incorrect party is in the dispute here (and honestly, this is only the lane splitting dispute), everyone's at fault for it having come here." (my emphasis)

For some reason I'm having an easy time seeing how others are at fault for it having come here (like filing this frivolous RfC, for example, not to mention the ANIs), but I'm having trouble seeing how I'm at fault. Was that just assumed, or is there some specific inappropriate behavior on my part that can be brought to my attention?

What did I do that I should not have done (or what should I have done, that I did not do) in order to prevent "it having come here"?

Thanks --Born2cycle (talk) 00:01, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi Born2cycle. Let me attempt to make lemonade out of lemons too- for both of us.


 * First, an apology: I hadn't posted this with any ulterior motives. I wasn't aware I had been involved in the lane splitting dispute as much as I had been. In fact, if we look back, you and I actually had a conversation *before* the dispute that was very generic and uneventful.


 * Second, please be careful when reading the following- as I indicated on your talk page, I don't want to pick at scabs, nor do I want to imply "I'm right and you're wrong". Hopefully I can give the reasons I filed the RFC, talk about the behavior, and turn it into a "what have I/we learned" moment. So please take the following with a grain of sugar. Also note I'm going to make claims about you and your behavior, but I'm trying to do so in a spirit of explaining how things look from my point of view, and to do so as constructive criticism, as you said you were willing to hear.


 * My intent of posting the RFC wasn't simply as spillover of the lanesplitting dispute. The behavior that bothered me is probably just a personality conflict between you and I: I tend to shy away from conflicts and long-running large issues (such as paid editing, date delinking, Obama articles, etc). That doesn't mean they aren't important; I'm just a person who likes to edit articles, reach simple consensus, and so on.


 * I get the feeling, and the outside views of this RFC agree, that you are more interested and willing to get into more problematic issues. As the outside views have shown me, that's entirely acceptable. So I was wrong on seeing this, in itself, as a problem.


 * Having said that, you spend a lot of time (currently, 70.45%) on talk pages. That's a lot more time discussing and arguing than making contributions; comparing it to some admins I admire, it's approximately opposite: Kotra, Casliber, EncMstr, Juliancolton, Beetstra, DGG. Obviously this is a self-selected sample, but it's also revealing, as (theoretically) admins should be spending a decent amount of time on "behind the scenes" work, including various article/user/wikipedia talk pages.


 * My advice to you: be very careful not to head down the road of WP:LAWYER: hiding behind the letter of the law, rather than the spirit of the law. You have deep knowledge of policy, which is helpful in many of areas (I'm surprised you don't hang around WP:XFD and WP:NPP more). But note that etiquette not only means assume good faith but also the guidelines on WP:TPG: "communication, courtesy and consideration".


 * My advice to myself: I should have been more honest about our previous interactions before filing the RFC. Trying to paint myself as uninvolved isn't correct- perhaps "mildly uninterested" is would have been more apt. And while I thought I'd contacted you on your user page in a positive manner, it was more abrupt than it should have been.


 * To wrap up, let me apologize for not handling this better on our user talk pages. I'm looking forward to future interactions with you, as you have the depth of policy understanding that can be useful. tedder (talk) 04:33, 18 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks Tedder, that makes sense. I think and hope there is room for all kinds of editors on Wikipedia, not just those who spend the majority of their time editing article content.   Policy and guidelines are important, and happen to be a big interest of mine (in particular naming policy and guidelines).  Ultimately, they define what Wikipedia is.  I think it's important to draw a distinction between honest interest in this topic, and bad faith use of technicalities in order to further an agenda.  There was no evidence of the latter here, because none of that was going on.  --Born2cycle (talk) 05:04, 18 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree. I hope there's room for it too. Thanks. tedder (talk) 17:52, 18 June 2009 (UTC)