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: 18:48, 5 June 2024 (UTC).
Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.
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.
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.
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.
(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.)
{list the policies and guidelines that apply to the disputed conduct}
See #Evidence of disputed behavior
{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}
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:
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:
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:
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:
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)
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.