The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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: 00:35, 4 June 2009 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 00:39, 13 June 2024 (UTC).

---

• Born2cycle (talk · contribs · logs)

---

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

User:Born2cycle has shown a pattern of disruptive editing, specifically wikilawyering and tendentious editing.

Desired outcome[edit]

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[edit]

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 Wikipedia'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[edit]

1. 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
2. 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"
3. Lanesplitting/filtering forward merge: "The vote of anyone who doesn't understand the difference between lane splitting and filtering forwarding should not be counted."
4. 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,
5. Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (flora): long history, see below.
6. 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[edit]

1. 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 Wikipedia: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[edit]

1. Lane splitting:

• 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: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User Born2cycle, tendentious editing and a flat refusal to engage in any sort of mediation (current ANI)

1. California Vehicle Code - Bicycle Relevant Sections: explanation of why it doesn't belong on Wikipedia by User:Who then was a gentleman?
2. Wikipedia: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)

• By User:KP Botany: "Consider this a civility and disruption warning." (this user also appears to have created a draft RFC for Born2cycle)

Evidence of failing to resolve the dispute[edit]

1. 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
2. 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[edit]

1. tedder (talk) 02:59, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. Dbratland (talk) 05:50, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Other users who endorse this summary[edit]

1. Biker Biker (talk) 06:58, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. Brianhe (talk) 17:13, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Endorser View by Dbratland[edit]

The original "Evidence of disputed behavior" above hits the main points in a succinct way. My comment is to expand it to show that Born2cycle meets every one of the criteria of a disruptive editor. I think a careful history review of disputes such as the one at WP:FLORA will help to show that this behavior is done in spite of Born2cycle's long experience and an excellent knowledge of how WP is supposed to work.

A disruptive editor is an editor who:

• Is tendentious:
  • This began Talk:Filtering forward#Disambiguation with motorcycle lane splitting and hairsplitting of terminology where Born2cycle made clear he is advocating for the Vehicular cycling perspective. In a nutshell, he does not accept that disagreement can exist here, and that vehicular cycling is a point of view -- he sees it as The Truth, and so he rejects treating vehicular cycling proponents as evangelists or activists. He says even police and courts are ignorant of the law, and he repeatedly dismisses police as mere bureaucrats, making his partisan bicycle activist sources the only ones who count, even when they are only self-published bloggers.
  • His resistance to organizing the bicycle and motorcycle material separately is based on the belief that doing so would somehow harm the rights of bicyclists, and that WP must be organized in a way that endorses the ideology that bicycles are vehicles the same as motorcycles. This is what eventually led him to begin his project of revising California Vehicle Code - Bicycle Relevant Sections to push this agenda, selectively quoting the code and providing his own gloss from weak sources to push that agenda.
  • Slight changes in wording to push a point of view that has failed to gain consensus [1] [2]

• Cannot satisfy Wikipedia:Verifiability:
  • Born2cycle has never once supplied a reliable source to support the claim that anyone believes it is legal to lane split in the 10 states other than California where it is not specifically prohibited. He has never once supplied a reliable source to support the legal theory that you can get away with any traffic maneuver that is not specifically prohibited in the traffic code.
  • The best source Born2cycle has ever offered that actually agrees with his legal theory is a self-published blogger. Knowing this is not good enough, Born2cycle inserted the opinion uncited [3] and put it back after I removed it [4] -- and had the gall to ask for a source to refute the unsupported claim! -- then proceeded to insert another version of the same opinion, uncited [5]
  • [6] This is the edit where the weasel phrase "Opinions differ on whether lane splitting is legal in these other states. " was introduced, citing only sources who say, vaguely, "California and other states." Keep in mind that this reasoning had already failed and failed again on the Talk page.
  • [7] This edit is bizarre. While the laws for whether or not motorcycles may lane split are one thing, bicycle lane splitting is allowed in all 50 states and around the world. But Born2cycle's ideology requires the unsupported claim that there is no difference. He supports it [8] by simply editing out part of the full quote that undermines his claim: except those provisions which by their very nature can have no application and blatantly ignoring that on the subject of lane splitting, the very topic of the article, motorcycles and bicycles have two sets of separate rules to follow. Hence the lack of controversy over whether bicycles can ride between lanes.

• Engages in "disruptive cite-tagging":
  • Note that Lane splitting said long before Born2cycle or I came along that it was legal only in CA. [9]. I did not insert that statement, but rather only added more and more citations to support it. It was only after I started adding support that Born2cycle began inserting endless ((fact)) tags, and unsupported claims that there were opinions to the contrary.
  • [10]
  • [11] (The full chapter of the book saying this was supplied to Born2cycle but he's deleting the citation and adding a ((fact)) tag because the sentences quoted in the ((Citation)) template aren't quite enough for him)
  • [12] It says "see list below" directing the reader to the section Born2cycle was attacking before, in spite of consensus that it was well-supported. He's instead trying of creative ways to get around consensus.

• Does not engage in consensus building:
  • Born2cycle believes he alone is the sole judge of whether his arguments have been refuted, and that anyone who disagrees with him is by definition unqualified to have their opinion count. His arguments failed to win any supporters on Talk:Lane splitting, yet he deludes himself that those who disagree "can't refute his arguments." [13] These examples equate to "Refusal to 'get the point'" WP:IDHT
  • Born2cycle has ignored repeated offers to accept his version provided he can show a reliable source who think you can lane split in one of the 10 states in question, or a reliable source who says if it isn't prohibited, it must be allowed.
  • He has repeatedly ignored offers of mediation, and suggestions to resolve this at WP:V. When asked again and again how this dispute will be ever resolved, he has ignored the question. It was only after this RFC was created that he finally turned to WP:V.
  • Previously, when merging two articles was debated not once but three separate times first, second, third Born2cycle only once seemed to be willing to compromise [14], but then proceeded to attach endless conditions, and start new arguments on new tangents.[15] Later, he simply reverted to his previous uncompromising position.[16]
  • There is every reason to believe that in the face of his failure to win consensus, he intends to filibuster with no end in sight. He has never sought consensus except in the face of administrative sanctions.
  • Further evidence of his efforts to destroy any hope of consensus is the continual forum shopping and starting new threads on the same page, or on User Talk pages, and elsewhere. Instead of addressing the issue at hand where in the place being discussed, Born2cycle pops up all over WP trying to incite duplicate debates. A recent example is in response to my endorsement of this RFC: [17]. Here is one on my talk page [18]. Rather than respond to Tedder here, he wants to argue over on his talk page: [19]. Obviously, there is a place for taking a discussion to a user page, but this behavior is clearly intended to draw the comments out to make them longer, more wide-ranging, and to draw in more issues.
  • Venue shopping to block the merge of Lane splitting and Filtering forward [20] even after it had been thoroughly discussed THREE TIMES and he had convinced no one. Consensus was reached, but if more and more editors are drawn in, there will never be consensus, there will only be Born2cycle repeating his old arguments and inventing new ones.
  • [21] is an example of responding to this RFC by attempting to drum up support -- or perhaps just carry on more fighting -- in a new venue.
• Rejects community input:
  • This has already been shown above, such as here [22] and here [23]
• Campaign to drive away productive contributors: Born2cycle does not use ordinaary incivility or personal attacks, and it not known to use sockpuppets. There have been efforts, already pointed to above, where this person has worked to bring in more editors to advocate for his point of view. I'm not sure I would call that meatpuppetry.
  • The prime way Born2cycle drives away other contributors is by Ad nauseam argument, cited in the diffs above in several places. If by this point you have reviewed any of his many debates, you know that he relentlessly wears down any who stand against him, repeating the same arguments without end. He circles back again and again to re-open previous points of dispute, and works hard to redefine terms, and magnify small differences in terminology in order to have more reasons for debate. This does not just destroy consensus; this is a form of bullying that drives away those who would participate in a constructive discussion but who are quickly exhausted by this person's non-stop screeds.

Other users who endorse this summary

1. Dbratland (talk) 22:23, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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:

1. Lane splitting by motorcycles is generally legal in Europe.
2. Lane splitting by motorcycles is generally legal in Europe in Japan and several other countries
3. 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 [1] [2] 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 [1] 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)[reply]

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:

1. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:22, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On mediation and scope of this RfC[edit]

I understand that prior to filing an RfC the users who file the RfC must approach the user in question to try to resolve the conflict. The only way this was done was asking me to participate in mediation [1]. Contrary to allegations made above, I did not refuse mediation. What I did was ask why mediation was necessary [1]. I believe it's important to clearly establish the purpose of a mediation before agreeing to participate, in order to avoid an open-ended nightmare situation. The answer I received was (in short) to mediate the issue of whether the challenger has the burden to provide sources in order to add a ((fact)) tag to unsourced challenged material in an article [2]. This is the only issue I was ever asked to go to mediation about, and yet the allegations in this RfC go way beyond that issue, matters about which we had no discussion or debate, much less any requests for mediation. For what it's worth, I saw no reason to mediate a point about which policy is so crystal clear. If there were other issues they wanted to mediated, I was certainly not notified about that.

This is why in my summary above I have only responded to the who has burden issue, which is the only issue that was ever in dispute here. I respectfully submit that everything else alleged about my behavior is completely out of scope for this RfC and should be ignored (not to mention that the corrections to all the misunderstandings and misrepresentations made in those accusations alone would take a lot of time and room to respond to). Unless an experienced editor not yet involved in this dispute explains to me how it is relevant, I will ignore it. If anyone believes this is an unreasonable stand to take about the scope of this RfC, please let me know. Thanks. --Born2cycle (talk) 02:27, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Other users who endorse this summary:

Primary complaints[edit]

To show good faith, I will address the two main complaints about me:

• Tendentious editing. Since Tendentious editing is editing with a sustained bias, or with a clear viewpoint contrary to neutral point of view, I'd like to know what my accusers think my "sustained view" or "clear viewpoint contrary to neutral point of view" is that is reflected in my editing. Is it really disruptive to edit with a sustained bias against challenged material in articles that is unsourced? That's the only "sustained view" with which I was editing.

If anyone was editing with a "a clear viewpoint contrary to neutral point of view" at Lane splitting it was User:Dbratland, who has consistently edited with his viewpoint that lane splitting is always illegal in all states except California, and that the article should say this even though we have no sources for it. He started this tendentious editing on May 11 and continued it as recently as yesterday. I find it ironic that he has the gall to accuse me of tendentious editing.

• Wikilawyering. Apparently this is about my attempt to apply WP:V, and, specifically WP:BURDEN, to prevent the inclusion of challenged material without sources in the article. Is that wikilawyering?

--Born2cycle (talk) 15:18, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Other users who endorse this summary:

Lesson Learned: Do not tolerate Personal Attacks[edit]

In retrospect, I think one error I made here was to not demand adherence to the no personal attacks policy as soon as it was breached. Not that I didn't try, however. I requested focus on content numerous time, as early as May 21st ("Can we please stick to the issues and WP:AGF?"), and, on May 27th, I even made a friendly request for Dbratland to cease with the personal attacks on his talk page. But the attacks just continued to escalate, and ultimately manifested themselves in the form of ANIs and this frivolous RfC.

As I go back over Talk:Lane splitting I'm amazed at how often it was violated. WP:NPA clearly states:

"Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor."

...

"Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done. When in doubt, comment on the article's content without referring to its contributor at all."

This policy was violated by User:Dbratland, a certifier of this RfC, at Talk:Lane splitting in at least each of these instances:

• May 16, 2009. Attacking an editor by insultingly saying, "It's very clear that none of these points mean much to you." [1]
• May 20, 2009. Rather than focusing on content, disparaging an editor by accusing him of "crossing the line between constructive editing and being disruptive" (a very subjective and so pointless -- except to be disparaging -- opinion to share, not to mention focus on contributor rather than content). [2]
• May 21, 2009. Dismissing the posts about content of an editor by accusing him of "arguing over minutiae" [3]
• May 21, 2009. Inappropriately citing WP:TIGER, which is an essay about making article content reflect neutral rather than "strong" views, in order to try to justify condescendingly telling an editor that he personally is "too passionate" [4]
• May 21, 2009. Characterizing a debate in personal terms. "I have supplied ...". You have supplied nothing ...". "Who besides you ..." (twice). "Why are you the only person ..." [5] (these are all direct violations of "Comment on content, not on the contributor.")
• May 23, 2009. Violation of Comment on content rather than on contributor. [6]
• May 26, 2009. Blatant violation of WP:AGF as well as WP:NPA... "I think you're playing games" [7]
• May 27, 2009. Personal insult in Edit Summary comment: "certain people will stop at nothing to keep a fight going..." [8]
• May 26, 2009, June 2 2009. Perhaps marginal violations each taken alone, but still examples of the pattern of violating WP:NPA by commenting on contributor rather than content. [9] [10] [11] [12]

Obviously I'm biased, but I really don't think I'm blowing anything out of proportion here. I wouldn't have bothered to compile all this stuff or even raise the issue, if they hadn't filed an RfC against me, but, here we are: a pattern of core Wikipedia policy violation is clearly established by this record of behavior.

Now, I'm not saying I'm totally innocent of engaging in personal attacks... I realize I slip from time to time, but I try very hard to maintain composure and try to always assume good faith (not just merely act like I have good faith), and I don't think I ever came close to establishing a clear pattern of policy abuse like this during any of the discussion at issue here.

FWIW, I don't think Dbratland was doing anything maliciously wrong. However, I think he did not, and still does not, fully understand and appreciate the purpose and value of WP:AGF and WP:NPA (not to mention that Extremism in defense of WP:V IS a virtue, or that pointing any of this out is not wikilawyering), or how his behavior clearly violated policy and how these edits add up to the very kind of disruptive editing that he accused (and continues to accuse) me of engaging in. As outside observer DHowell notes below, "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. " Indeed, I'm sure all of the disputes could have been quickly resolved, and relatively quickly, if Dbratland remained focused on content all along, but I don't have any reason to believe he realizes this.

At least if he engages in this type of behavior again, this RfC will establish that ignorance on his part can no longer be an excuse.

And the lesson for me, I think, is to nip this kind of thing in the bud next time it happens, perhaps asking for outside intervention if necessary, rather than continuing to discuss and debate with someone who has so obviously fails to abide by WP:AGF, and repeatedly resorts to personal attacks in his posts.

--Born2cycle (talk) 17:51, 6 June 2009 (UTC) (final revisions --Born2cycle (talk) 00:13, 7 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Other users who endorse this summary:

Lesson Learned: seek outside help for general issues[edit]

One of the early sticking points between Dbratland and me was whether a banal statement that was obviously true needs to be sourced when challenged per WP:V. This was the statement in question:

Whether such a citation will hold up to a challenge in court depends on the particular situation. [1]

My argument was that this statement did not need to be sourced because there can be no genuine challenge to it [2]. Indeed, in his supposed challenge, even User:Dbratland admitted that it was "a banal observation that all traffic citations may be challenged" [3]. So his challenge was not that it needed to be sourced per WP:V - he only later started arguing that it needed to be sourced, which, ironically, is a form of wikilawerying since he was not honestly questioning the veracity of the statement. His real objection to the statement was that it implied something contrary to his POV: that lane splitting might be legal in some cases in these states.

At any rate, I now realize that his challenges to the statement based on it not being sourced per WP:V, even though they were not genuine, should have been heeded, per WP:BURDEN. I have come to realize this after I asked about it on the talk page of WP:V. In retrospect, I (we?) should have gone there sooner, as soon as the general question of whether a challenge to a "banal" statement needs to be taken seriously was raised, and whether the WP:BURDEN clause still applies in such a case (again, I now realize it does).

So, when an impasse is reached about a general issue of policy, the best course to take is to seek outside opinion from the appropriate place.

Actually, apparently this issue is unresolved even at the general level. "the removal of the text is not because it is unsourced, but because the remover feels that it is untrue." [4]. So, apparently there is some question as to whether unsourced material challenged by someone who does not doubt its veracity is grounds for removal of that material.

Still, seeking outside help, early, is the probably a good idea, though I'm not so sure it would have helped much in this case. --Born2cycle (talk) 19:36, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Other users who endorse this summary:

Lesson Learned: WP:V policy updated accordingly[edit]

I've added the following statement to the WP:BURDEN section of WP:V to clarify the consensus view at the WP:V talk page about the point of contention discussed above:

The burden lies with the editor who adds or restores material even when the material in question is about information that is not known. That is, challenged source that says some informations is not known needs to support such material, or it may be removed.

--Born2cycle (talk) 04:40, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dbratland[edit]

I know this RFC is supposed to be about me, but

An RfC may bring close scrutiny on all involved editors. The Arbitration Committee closely considers evidence and comments in RfC if the editors involved in the RfC are later named in a request for arbitration. Filing an RfC is not a step to be taken lightly or in haste. link

FWIW, User:Dbratland, despite the filing of this RFC, is continuing his campaign against me, this time in response to my proposing a move request. [[1]. I am going to ignore it there (except for maybe referencing this), but thought it should be mentioned here.

Can someone please explain to him that that is totally inappropriate and against Wikipedia policy? --Born2cycle (talk) 19:35, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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[edit]

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. --Jc3s5h (talk) 14:07, 4 June 2009

Users who endorse this summary:

1. --Jc3s5h (talk) 18:30, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:24, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. ThemFromSpace 01:37, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. DHowell (talk) 02:34, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5. —S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 12:23, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
6. --Mysidia (talk)
7. --Agree. Note, WP:V is a policy, and can be empirically seen as supporting Born2cycle's position; WP:LAWYER is an essay. Anarchangel (talk) 04:40, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
8. --Agree. If it is legal in California, there must be some newspaper, magazine article, sometime in the last century that has casually referenced, and could be used as a source. If no source can be found, then it's original research. Nfitz (talk) 01:15, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by C S[edit]

I don't see anything wrong with Born2cycle's behavior. I have some doubts about the motivations of people involved in filing this RFC, such as Tedder, who despite obviously not being neutral, offered to "mediate", and then filed an RFC on Born2cycle when he was refused.

On going through Born2cycle's comments, I believe s/he is approaching editing in good faith, and is honestly trying to resolve some legitimate questions that are raised by the wording and (problematic) citing of the lane splitting material. I do believe there may be a bit of blindness or swiftness in dismissing some of the informal sources that have been brought up, but ultimately Born2cycle is correct, as I will explain.

Wikipedia relies on the principle of "verifiability, not truth". Tedder, et al, have been relying on "truth", while Born2cycle relies on "verifiability". If I were pressed, I would probably agree that Born2cycle is probably wrong about the legality of lane splitting. But s/he's certainly not wrong about requiring verifiable sources. As pointed out elsewhere by others, the legality of this kind of issue is complicated by the number of regulations which may even appear confusing or contradictory unless interpreted properly. It is not for us to judge. It is only for us to report on what the reliable sources say about it, rather than interpreting primary sources.

Is Born2cycle wrong, incivil, etc., in insisting that Wikipedia policy be followed? No. It used to be that Wikipedia operated by different norms, but nowadays, those that insist that the relevant policies be followed to the letter are in the majority. By the standards of the community, Born2cycle cannot be considered incivil or having made some egregious violation of etiquette. Nor do I see any gross edit-warring.

Regarding the whole stubbornness/tendentious editing aspect. If s/he's been stubborn, I see no evidence it's of a greater degree than the several people who have been in the opposition. They've been truly very reluctant to abide by Wikipedia policy and been engaging in a kind of "holding action" to keep Born2cycle at bay. They ought to know better than accuse him/her of being tendentious. The label can very easily be applied to them. --C S (talk) 20:23, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

1. 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)[reply]
2. DHowell (talk) 02:36, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. ThemFromSpace 04:36, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. Locke9k (talk) 00:18, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5. In the examples given that Born2bycle is citing rules, I see mostly, others ignoring his citing of these rules. No one should be censured for being a wikilawyer because others don't concede their points or follow the path of discussion that leads to their points being refuted Anarchangel (talk) 04:40, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by DHowell[edit]

I was asked to give my thoughts on the lane splitting debate by Born2cycle after I participated in an AfD for an article this editor was working on. I agreed with the view that a source was needed for the challenged statement that lane splitting "is illegal in the US except California" and that the sources given were not sufficient to support this statement. I also agreed that a statement that the law was unknown or unclear, that Born2cycle added and Dbratland challenged, also needed a source. In the end, all that was really needed was a truly neutral third party to mediate the dispute, rather than accusations of disruption and tendentious editing for which I see very little evidence of. As can be seen on the talk page, 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. So in my opinion the best thing to do is to drop this RFC, the ANI, and the accusations of disruptive and tendentious editing, and return to editing and politely discussing any remaining disputes. If the involved editors can agree to a truce, then I'd say also that an admin should unprotect the page ASAP and let the suggested edits be implemented. DHowell (talk) 02:54, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

1. --Born2cycle (talk) 03:37, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. ThemFromSpace 04:38, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by Mendaliv[edit]

I came into this dispute following a request for editor assistance at WP:EAR by Born2cycle which asked for advice on how to approach an RfC/U. My advice in that was intended to be entirely neutral, but I felt it would be a good idea to come over here and take a look at the dispute.

The complaint here suggests a general problem (tendentious editing), but provides only specific evidence- diffs and conversations related to one dispute (most of the arguments at Talk:Lane splitting aren't evidentiary of this at all). Tendentious editing is a very serious accusation, and if the editors making that accusation have made an appropriate assumption of good faith, the issue should span several articles in a topic area over months where the editor in question is clearly experienced. I have seen no evidence of disruptive editing- discussion is generally not disruptive, and the complaint includes no evidence which suggests to me Born2cycle's possibly poor manner of arguing was deliberately disruptive. Wikilawyering is also a serious accusations, and nowhere in the evidence provided do I see either specific or general incidents of Born2cycle's behavior that fits the description laid out in WP:WL.

I have many many other issues with the evidence presented, but I don't think it's necessary to say anything more than I feel the accusations made in the complaint and endorser's view are simply bogus. While I believe they were made in good faith, hoping to stop a pattern of what they felt was disruptive behavior, they're quite off-base here. This is an issue for WP:RSN, WP:NORN, WP:NPOVN and/or related WikiProjects.

As I said to Born2cycle at WP:EAR, and as my grandmother often would say, it takes two to tango. 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.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. As author. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 17:58, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:52, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. --Aervanath (talk) 06:52, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by[edit]

Users who endorse this summary:

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.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.