User:Nfutvol/Tim Zukas RFC Draft

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: ~~~~), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 00:53, 13 November 2024 (UTC).

---

• Tim_Zukas (talk · contribs · logs)

---

Users should not edit other people's summaries or views, except to endorse them. All signed comments other than your own view or an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page.

Statement of the dispute

User Tim Zukas has made dozens of edits based on information from various airline guides, timetables and maps to airport, rail station and rail line pages. However, he has continually refused properly to cite these edits utilizing available templates, or, in many cases, to include citations at all. This has continued on pages that have obtained Good Article status, and articles that are seeking Good Article status, which puts these statuses at risk. These are generally good-faith edits, and if he were to cite his work properly and work with other editors, he would have the potential to become a very helpful and productive editor.

A full log of this activity and the efforts to inform him of the proper methods may be found on his talk page dating from 2012-08-03 18:14 EDT. Further discussion may be found at the talk page for Nashville International Airport.

Desired outcome

• That the user follow established guidelines for providing useful and unambiguous citations.
• That the user follow the prevailing style of the articles being edited when entering citations, especially articles that are of GA or Featured Article/List status, or articles that are seeking such status.
• That the user continue to provide useful edits and engage the community when questions or suggestions are raised.

Description

{Add your summary here. You must use the endorsement section below to sign it. Anyone is welcome to endorse this or any other view, but do not change other people's views. Editors writing this section should not normally add additional views below.}

Evidence of disputed behavior

(Provide diffs. Links to entire articles aren't helpful unless the editor created the entire article. Edit histories also aren't helpful as they change as new edits are performed.)

Palm Beach International Airport

Tuscon International Airport

Piedmont Triad International Airport

San Francisco International Airport

Coleman A. Young International Airport

Smith Reynolds Airport

Richmond International Airport

Hoboken Terminal

Miami International Airport

Port Columbus International Airport

Port Columbus International Airport

Chicago Midway Article

Applicable policies and guidelines

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

WikiProject Aviation Sourcing Guide

WikiProject Aviation General Style Guide

Verifiability Guide

Reliable Sources Guide

Edit warring (to a lesser extent)

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

(Provide diffs of the comments. As with anywhere else on this RfC/U, 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.)

Attempts by certifier nf utvol

Attempt 1

Attempt 2

Attempt 3

Attempt 4

Attempts by certifier Nyttend

1. [1]

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

nf utvol (talk) 23:04, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Nyttend (talk) 03:23, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Response

This section is reserved for the use of the user whose conduct is disputed. Users writing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Outside Views") should not edit the "Response" section, and the person writing this section should not write a view below. Anyone is welcome to endorse this or any other view, but no one except the editor(s) named in the dispute may change the summary here.

{Add your summary here. You must use the endorsement section below to sign it.}

Users who endorse this summary:

Views

This section is for statements or opinions written by users not directly involved with this dispute, but who would like to add a view of the dispute. Users should not edit other people's summaries or views, except to endorse them. All signed comments other than your own view or an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" or "Response") should not normally edit this section, except to endorse another person's view.

Outside view by Centpacrr

I was asked to comment in here but I'm not really sure what useful addition I can make. I have had very little interaction with this user except in a couple of western US railroad articles some time ago and the EWR article recently in which all I did was restored some relevant material he had added that had been removed by another editor because it had not been properly cited. I restored the information (which I had found to be useful), inserted proper referencing, and posted a note in the user's talk page to that effect with the note to him that if he did not use that sourcing format his future contributions were likely to continue to be deleted by other editors despite the information itself being relevant. I also noted that while his actions could possibly be considered to be disruptive to some extent, they certainly did not seem to constitute "vandalism" as defined by WP policy. As I have not watched any of the other pages to which he has been contributing since then I was not aware that the reference formatting issue had persisted. I know that the user has been advised of the proper procedure at least by me as noted above but I am not sure if there is anything else I can do to help resolve the issue. Centpacrr (talk) 22:46, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:

Outside view by ExampleUsername

{Add your summary here. You must use the endorsement section below to sign it. Anyone is welcome to endorse this or any other view, but do not change other people's views.}

Users who endorse this summary:

Reminder to use the talk page for discussion

All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.