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.

A summary of the debate may be found at the bottom of the 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: 17:40, 29 July 2008 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 00:19, 16 January 2025 (UTC).

• MAL01159 (talk · contribs · logs)

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

This is a summary written by users who are concerned by this user's conduct. Users signing other sections ("Response" or "Outside views") should not edit the "Statement of the dispute" section.

This is a disruptive and tendentious single purpose account. MAL01159 has disputed every source provided by other editors, but has not provided any source to back up their own position (other than one requiring an original interpretation of primary source data), and has consistently refused to accept the unanimous consensus of other editors.

This is a summary written by users who have initiated the request for comment. It should spell out exactly what the changes they'd like to see in the user, or what questions of behavior should be the focus.

Ideally, the desired outcome is that MAL01159 accepts: in general, that Wikipedia discussions work by consensus and requires its content to be cited to reliable sources; in particular, that the consensus in this case has been reached after reviewing the sources.

{Add summary here, but you must use the section below to certify or endorse it. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries, other than to endorse them.}

The Atlanta Braves won fourteen MLB division championships, three before and eleven after the 1994 season which was cut short by a player's strike. MAL01159 wants to remove the sourced assertion that the Atlanta Braves won "14 consecutive division championships", seemingly without regard to verifiability, neutrality, or consensus. MAL01159 has only contributed to Atlanta Braves, Talk:Atlanta Braves, to WP:EAR, and to a couple of user talk pages. Every contribution to date has concerned this issue. As such, Special:Contributions/MAL01159 provides an excellent record of the dispute.

1. [1] MAL01159's first edit, making the disputed change.
2. [2] Second edit to the Talk page of the editor who reverted the above change, stating that they are willing to compromise and then stating that they are not, really, willing to compromise on this issue.
3. [3] Again making the disputed change.
4. [4] Edit warring to make the disputed change.
5. [5] The first post in a long and tendentious argument with User:Baseball_Bugs.
6. [6] A request for editor assistance, which brought my attention to this dispute.
7. [7] MAL01159's 47th edit and first contribution to the article's talk page.
8. [8] An attempt to misrepresent a source to make it look like it supports MAL01159's point of view.
9. [9] Insertion of original research (MAL01159's own argument) into the same footnote as above.
10. [10] After both the above edits were reverted, MAL01159 removes the source (ironically, the only source verifying any support for that point of view).

1. Wikipedia:Neutral point of view
2. Wikipedia:Verifiability
3. Wikipedia:No original research
4. Wikipedia:Synthesis
5. Wikipedia:Consensus
6. Wikipedia:Disruptive editing
7. Wikipedia:Tendentious editing

1. [11] User:Gwynand appeals for MAL01159 to produce any sources and notes that all sources seem to support an unbroken streak of 14.
2. [12] User:JohnInDC sppeals for sources and points out that it's not what we think that counts, but what the sources say.
3. [13] User:SheffieldSteel argues that original research cannot be used, only sources.
4. [14] User:Arichnad agrees that MAL01159 is interpreting the primary data, and again points out that no source makes the same interpretation.
5. [15] User:BillCJ also argues that one user's unsourced interpretation or synthesis cannot trump cited sources.
6. [16] User:Fnlayson becomes the seventh and final editor to agree with the straw poll proposal that consensus exists and that we should move on. No "disagree" votes were made.

1. [17] MAL01159 provides, as sources, primary source data consisting of season results tables (which do not say anything about streaks or championships).
2. [18] MAL01159 argues that the primary data, in conjunction with the english language definition of "streak" is sufficient.
3. [19] MAL01159 continues to insist that a logical argument is sufficient to justify the contested change.

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

1. As author. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 19:19, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2. As one who tried to find resolutions. Kingturtle (talk) 19:30, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
3. JohnInDC (talk) 17:50, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:02, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2. Fnlayson (talk) 18:46, 30 July 2008 (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.}

Regarding the statement of dispute: This is an outright lie. I have NOT disputed every source provided. Quite the contrary. I have provided source after source and not one editor would even consider the possibility that there could very well be another take on the matter. Each source provided by other editors was given careful scrutiny. There was but one source given that could be deemed in their favor. It was, however, contradicted by another source from the very same web site. My sources were immediately dismissed with no reliable reason given.MAL01159 (talk) 19:44, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the desired outcome: That outcome existed as soon as I started the discussion. I am aware of the consensus issue. I am well aware of citing reliable sources. Not only that, but I have accepted that the article will indeed remain using the 14 consecutive number, even though that number was determined using unreliable and opinion-based sources. The 11 vs 14 issue has been put to bed by me for a week now. There are other editors who seem to refuse to accept the fact that I have already abandoned the issue who seem to wish to keep it alive.MAL01159 (talk) 19:58, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the evidence of disputed behavior: 1. The change was made originally because I saw an error in the numbers. I made the change and explained why. This action cannot be considered disruptive. 2. I have always claimed I was willing to compromise on the issue to create a version that all were agreeable with. Those requests were brutally rejected. 3,4 & 5. This entire process occurred before I was completely familiar with the practices regarding discussions. I asked User:Baseball_Bugs for assistance but he 100% ignored my requests. I only searched for editor assistance when I was offered no aid in any way regarding the dispute. 7. Was the first I was made aware of the article talk page. 8. A complete fabrication. The source was not misrepresented in anyway whatsoever. It is not possible to misrepresent the source I provided. It was plain and obvious what it was saying. A fact I attempted to explain to no avail. 9. There was no original research in the source. This was an opinion and spin engineered in an attempt to discredit my source. The fact is, if my source was original research, then so is everything they put forth suggesting the streak was 14. As we later discovered that the one source that could put an end to this one way or the other did not officially have a say in the matter. At least, not that any side could determine. 10. That source was edited by me before being reverted. As it was, it was not a source to support 11 over 14, but it was merely an opinion piece in which the writer felt the streak was 14. It did reference an MLB publication that called the streak 9 (as it was at the time it was published.) If the goal was to show the streak of 14 was not an absolute, then there was no need to include the quote of the writer's opinion. I removed the quote, leaving only the reference the the MLB publication. User:SheffieldSteel then put the quote back, claiming it to be an important part of the reference. The writer's opinion could only be deemed important if the reference was used to endorse the idea that the streak was not broken. Since User:SheffieldSteel insisted the quote be included, I removed the reference altogether because with it, it was nothing more than a lone writer's opinion of the situation.

Regarding the applicable policies and guidelines:

Wikipedia:Neutral point of view: Not violated by me in any way shape or form. However, it was violated by others in the discussion. Wikipedia:Verifiability: Not violated by me. But a case could be made others did. Wikipedia:No original research: I do not consider what I did as violating this. However, if it were, then it would follow that others did the same thing to endorse their position as well. Wikipedia:Synthesis: Not violated by me. Wikipedia:Consensus: Not violated by me. Although, one could consider other editors continuing to bring up the issue after consensus was reached to be a violation. Wikipedia:Disruptive editing: Not violated by me. At least, not once I had a firmer grasp on the process. I think it wrong to claim this when the only time it occurred was when I was brand new here. Wikipedia:Tendentious editing: Again, not violated by me.

None of the above offenses can be attributed by me. At least, not once I was made aware of the discussion process. No thanks to the editors I spoke with early on.MAL01159 (talk) 20:49, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding evidence in trying to resolve the dispute: 1. It is said that all sources support an unbroken streak. But the fact is they do not. I explained this situation in crystal clear terms to User:Gwynand. 2. I agreed with what User:JohnInDC had to say. 3. I explained to User:SheffieldSteel that I was not using original research. I explained why. I never received a rebuttal to what I said. Only a repeated accusation. 4. I again had to explain that there was only one way to interpret the data. And I was doing so correctly. And I had to point out that there were indeed sources confirmed this. 5. Again, I had to repeat that the data could only be interpreted one way. Provided one understands what the columns and numbers mean. And that my cited sources contradicted the others. 6. And I accepted that the streak would continue to be 14 consecutive in the article, even though there was only one verifiable source to confirm it, and that one contradicted itself on its own web site.

Regarding evidence failing to resolve the dispute: 1. The season results DO say a great deal about division championships. Provided one understands what is required to be crowned division champions. 2 & 3: I only resorted to the definition of words when others refused to acknowledge the sources I presented were credible. This was before I discovered the "It's OK to use your brain" section. Using the definition of the words falls into that category.

It should be noted very loudly that from the very beginning I was willing to compromise on the wording in the article. It was also clear that no other editor was interested in compromise in any way shape or form. When it became clear that no one was interested in verifiable sources to show the streak to be 11, I abandoned the entire argument as futile.

In the interest of compromise and civility, I accepted the 14. I then tried to start a discussion regarding alternate wording for the reason why 1994 did not count against the streak. To this date, absolutely no one has chimed in. Instead, User:SheffieldSteel and User:Baseball_Bugs continued to "beat a dead horse" by continuing to bring up the 11 vs 14 matter. A matter that I had already considered closed.

It should also be noted that much of the comments claiming me to be "disruptive" came when I was VERY new here. And completely unaware of the policies and procedures. I was also offered no help from the first editor I encountered. (User:Baseball_Bugs) Who did, in fact, make accusations of me and was quite uncivil.MAL01159 (talk) 20:34, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

1. MAL01159 (talk) 21:22, 29 July 2008 (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.}

I have read through the dispute on the Talk:Atlanta Braves page, and indeed it is clear to me that either MAL01159 utterly fails to grasp the concepts of Wikipedia:Consensus and Wikipedia:Verifiability, or he is willfully ignoring them to argue his point ad nauseum. Most recently, he has resorted not just to attacking the sources themselves, but also to accusing other editors of intentionally misquoting sources, which in this instance seems to be the pot calling the kettle black. Any action that results in MAL01159 not being allowed to edit this page further would be welcome.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. As author. -Dewelar (talk) 19:51, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 19:58, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
3. Kingturtle (talk) 20:59, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
4. JohnInDC (talk) 15:31, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
5. Icewedge (talk) 15:55, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
6. Yes. Badger Drink (talk) 05:26, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I also read through the whole Talk:Atlanta Braves page, though I come out of it with a slightly different take.

Granted User:MAL01159 has only contributed to Atlanta Braves since registering the account. But rather than call the editor a 'disruptive single-purpose account,' I would prefer to AGF and hope that their enthusiasm for the project led him or her to register the account and contribute what they believe to be in a helpful manner. Despite the heated tone this debate has taken on, consider the possibility that MAL01159 is really acting in good faith. This is alluded to in the summary of their first edit: "Am willing to discuss alternatives."

I think what we might have here is a case where a number of long-time editors have become disillusioned by repetitive interactions with real vandals and people who get it, but don't care, such that they don't recognize when an editor just really doesn't understand. For example, in many cases in the debate on Talk:Atlanta Braves, MAL01159 asks a question and the others involved in the discussion repeat or refer to previous arguments without clarifying. Take the following example as an abstract of what I see happening:

Newbie:Why is grass green? OldVet:The journal Science clearly states the grass is green. Any other discussion is moot. Newbie:Yes, but why is grass green? OldVet:I already explained this to you. It says so in Science. Who said it's blue?

That's one side of the coin. On the other side of the coin we have MAL01159 misunderstanding (again AGF) of the original research, verifiability, and consensus. MAL01159 must be informed clearly of these policies, and how his actions are contrary to Wikipedia policies. Specifically:

• MAL01159's interpretation of the MLB statistics is clearly original research. Any time an individual interprets something such as statistical data, the individual contributes their own bias and opinion to the interpretation.
• It is significantly because of this reason that Wikipedia requires any content in articles to be verified by being published in reliable, third-party sources. We simply report on the findings of others, we do not try to judge the accuracy of their findings. It is the editors of the journals who we assume to have done the judgement. In this specific case, Major League Baseball is about as authoritative a source as there is. How they interpret the statistics should carry significant weight.
• Regardless of the above, Wikipedia works on a consensus model. Editing decisions are made not by a single individual, but by agreement of all parties involved. In the article in question, there are several involved editors, certainly enough to form a consensus. The fact that MAL01159's opinion is contrary to a significant consensus of editors, should be a red flag to MAL01159.

Again, assuming good faith, I ask all editors involved to step back and work together. Should MAL01159 have any questions on the application of the policies I mention above, I would be happy to discuss them further with him (or her) via talk. If MAL01159 can take this as a learning experience and grasp the meaning of these policies without any further discussion, then I wish them happy editing (of Atlanta Braves or any other article).

Users who endorse this summary:

1. As author.—Livitup (talk) 14:15, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.

After reading through the RfC and all the diffs and supporting opinions, I have come to the following conclusion. User:MAL01159, who may or may not be a single purpose account, is noted that while permitted, single purpose accounts are discouraged. MAL01159 is also warned about making edits contrary to consensus, and urged to read the policies on original research, consensus, WP:V, and WP:NPOV. Furthermore, it is noted that further disruption of this nature will result in a block, possibly indef as a result of MAL01159's single-purpose account nature. Wizardman 15:47, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.