Case Opened on 22:10, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Case Closed on 03:02, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Watchlist all case pages: 1, 2, 3, 4

Please do not edit this page directly unless you wish to become a participant in this case. Only add a statement here after the case has begun if you are named as a party; otherwise, your statement may be placed on the talk page, and will be read in full. Evidence, no matter who can provide it, is very welcome at /Evidence. Evidence is more useful than comments.

Arbitrators, the parties, and other editors may suggest proposed principles, findings, and remedies at /Workshop. That page may also be used for general comments on the evidence. Arbitrators will then vote on a final decision in the case at /Proposed decision.

Once the case is closed, editors may add to the #Log of blocks and bans as needed, but it should not be edited otherwise. Please raise any questions at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Requests for clarification, and report violations of remedies at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement.

Involved parties

Rschen7754 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (initiating party)
TwinsMetsFan (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
Scott5114 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Son (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
JohnnyAlbert10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
NE2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Lpangelrob (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
O (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Requests for comment

Statement by Rschen7754

NE2 has refused to follow consensus several times, leading to the exhausting of the patience of the U.S. Roads WikiProject. With the current issue at hand, the inclusion of auto trails and city streets within the scope of USRD, NE2 has gone against the consensus (of six editors) and has reverted mainspace[1] and project pages[2] several times. In fact, he said he is willing to ignore consensus[3]. In the Mediation Cabal started shortly thereafter, he declined mediation, fearing that it would lead to concerns about his conduct here. However, this conduct is nothing new. Three previous RFCs have been filed in regards to similar matters. In fact, with the last mediation (being carried out at WT:HWY), even though the consensus was against him, many users just gave up because they were tired of fighting.

And yes, this does remind me of the WP:RFAR/HWY case, where SPUI held a similar attitude (section 7.2.3), and of the subsequent end to SRNC with a refusal to listen to consensus.

In terms of my page protection, this was neutral as it contained neither scott nor NE2's wording but said the scope was under dispute. I stand by my record as an administrator for over 2 years. I may have broken the letter of the law but not the spirit of the law.

In terms of a walled garden - this has been brought to our attention, and we have worked to make amends, including sending out apologies towards late summer 2007 (with my sending them) and during the last month displaying "Consensus must be done on wiki" in the topic. However, I realize that this may not have been 100% effective. As far as "NE2 bashing", although I have tried not to do this, I do apologize for my part and for allowing it to go on.

Statement by Scott5114

NE2 has clashed with the U.S. Roads project community several times. This is not inherently bad, but the manner in which these clashes have taken place is what has exhausted our patience with him. NE2 frequently edits against a consensus, as he did during the "decommissioned" debate this past October; an RFC was filed against him for this, which has links to diffs of edits such as these. During this dispute, he has said "You don't need consensus to improve articles"[4][5]. During the course of the most recent debate, he said "I'm always willing to ignore consensus"[6] and "You'll have to force me out"[7]. While NE2 can contribute positively to the encyclopedia, headbutting with him over issues has quickly become tiring. Civility may also be an issue here, with comments like "Would you like an eyepatch? We're having a special: two for $2..."[8] and "Duh... we already discussed this, and nobody objected." [9] He has also failed to assume good faith by accusing his opponents of forming a false consensus through IRC[10]. NE2's conduct makes working on roads projects difficult, as there's always a chance that a discussion will be roadblocked by him and nothing gets done.

NE2 has apparently clashed with other groups of editors as well, judging from comments left on RFC 1 and RFC 2. I believe that, undeterred, NE2's pattern of refusing to cooperate with the community will continue. —Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 03:27, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by NE2

The locus of the dispute is the purpose of WikiProject tags on talk pages. Should they be used on articles that relate to the project, or ones that the project members care about? (Two examples of disputed articles are Old Plank Road and Lake Shore Drive.) I would argue the former, since someone editing the article and wanting help should know which projects may be able to help. The other editors listed argue the latter, since they feel having stubs that they don't care about reflects badly on them and hurts their placement on the "Leaderboard". I asked what the purpose of these tags is at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council#What's the use of a project tag on the talk page?, and the general consensus of uninvolved editors, where they opined, is that they exist to help editors new to Wikipedia or that topic, and that it's not a problem if stubs exist because it's "the top of the scale" that matters. There are a number of sub-disputes that have erupted from this, such as the fact that the project scopes are often unclear, apparent collaboration on IRC to oppose me, and wanting any road (such as East Fork Road) that doesn't pass their somewhat strange notability criteria (basically anything numbered at the state level is notable but there's a very high bar for unnumbered routes, similar to the dispute over what gets tagged as part of the project), but the general question is why the project tags exist. --NE2 03:39, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Son

This discussion originated as a debate over making an Auto Trails task force within WP:USRD, which I proposed, but did not otherwise comment in. [11]

The debate then changed to Wikipedia talk:USRD#Change of scope nationwide, which was a proposal by Rschen7754. The proposal was to eliminate city streets from WP:USRD. After numerous comments and debate, I decided to add my two cents, by pointing out to NE2 that the user was the only one arguing against the proposal, and that WP:USST was created with the point of taking city street articles from WP:USRD. [12]

After several more comments, NE2 asked for a proposal to work with, so I quoted Rschen7754's initial proposal. [13] After more discussion, I commented again. [14] NE2 replied and I responded back starting a back and forth conversation between the two of us. I stated that WP:USST was created specifically to remove articles from WP:USRD. [15] NE2 responded by saying that it was created for all the wrong purposes and is not "a garbage dump for unwanted articles." [16] This upset me, as while the project was created specifically to remove articles from under WP:USRD, the purpose of the project is to help grow and improve these articles. [17] NE2 also challenged the standing of WP:USST, which is a young project and still has not gotten off its feet, largely because of the amount of clashing between WP:USRD and WP:USST. I also pointed out that consensus was not in NE2's corner. [18] NE2 responded by saying "You'll have to force me out." [19] I replied by asking NE2 if "you were willing to ride against consensus and be a disruption?" [20] NE2's response was "If you're talking to me, I'm always willing to ignore consensus." [21] I asked if NE2 was trying to make some kind of point [22], and the response was "No, I just know your track record. [23] This is a reference to a discussion on whether decommissioned highway is a neologism or not. My position was to follow common sense and ignore the rules in that particular situation. [24]

That is my primary involvement in the discussion. Through that discussion, NE2 has truly demonstrated that he would be willing to be a disruption to the project, all to obtain his result, even when consensus is clearly against him. When I mentioned WP:IAR it was under the understanding that it is meant to be used in specific cases. I felt that that was one of them. To use WP:IAR as a means to run around consensus is a disruption. NE2 has admitted as such.

While I believe that while NE2 has been somewhat helpful to the project, the negatives NE2 shows by being more of a disruption than anything else ([25], [26], [27] ) outweigh the helpfulness NE2 has brought to the project at this point. NE2 has had two RfC's (Wikipedia:Requests for comment/NE2 and Wikipedia:Requests for comment/NE2 (second RFC)). Nothing has seemed to improve with NE2's behavior, despite these RfCs. NE2's level of incivility can be overbearing at times also, and that has not changed over time. I find it highly unlikely that it will change, nor do I find it likely that NE2 will change unless action is taken. NE2 has stated that NE2 would be willing to be a disruption if NE2 does not get what NE2 wants. This cannot be allowed. --Son (talk) 05:09, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by TwinsMetsFan

The recent issue with NE2 is only the tip of the proverbial iceberg, and focusing only on said tip does not do this case justice. Issues with NE2 regarding consensus date as far back as the conclusion of the state route naming conventions poll in 2006 when NE2 attempted to reopen the entirety of SRNC, a resolution to months of absolutely absurd actions (page move wars, revert wars, a conflict that resulted in an ArbCom case - you name it, it probably happened) accepted by consensus, for nothing more than a minor programming change.[28] Is it wrong to give a suggestion? No. But is it wrong to give one considering the circumstances and also continually attempting to force-feed this suggestion for no reason other than to take advantage of the "pipe trick"? I believe so.

There's been other disputes, some less important than others. But a consistent trait from SRNC through the modern day is that NE2 is extremely difficult to work and collaborate with. I have tried to do so, with very mixed success. There was one dispute over content on New York State Route 52 that was resolved after a long period of discussion. There have been others, most recently a debate over a word used in the articles of former numbered highways, where he took unilateral, controversial action over dozens of articles, swapping one word for another, with no discussion. When the discussion was brought to the table, the end result was a long, drawn-out argument that ended only when an uninvolved third party developed an acceptable compromise. Both sides were at fault here in hindsight, but NE2's cold, condescending, self-omniscient manner that he carries with him to virtually every talk page likely delayed a resolution that could have been obtained much faster. And recently, NE2 has defied consensus by unilaterally determining project scopes against the consensus developed by said project. Now, the ArbCom probably doesn't give two damns about the actual action since it doesn't touch article space, but it is the point behind the action; that NE2 is on record as saying that he will ignore consensus if he doesn't believe the consensus is palatable. This creates an unhealthy environment for all editors and hinders the amount of progress that can actually be done. Wikipedia works by consensus and discussion, and it's apparent to me that NE2 is unable to accept the former and contribute to the latter in a manner that allows for peaceful resolutions. He's had three RFCs and two MedCabal cases levied against him for actions such as the ones previously described.

He has performed the same way at other projects as well (namely WP:NYCPT) and I see no reason that he will change now or in the future unless something is done. Every effort is made to work out a compromise when disputes arise, but what good is a compromise when he'll ignore it anyway if he doesn't like it? What is then the point of discussion? How can an editor help others work productively in a wiki-based environment if they think that the community's ideas, even widespread and generally accepted ones, are worthless and not worth following? The point of compromising and discussion is to come to a consensus, and ignoring consensus, especially blatantly and intentionally ignoring it as NE2 is doing, helps no one. Comments such as "you'll have to force me out" don't help either. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 07:06, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by O

First of all, I am extremely surprised at how this dispute steamrolled into this. First it was about a discussion of an auto trails project, then it turns to project scopes, and finally the subject of NE2 himself—I was starting to get extremely confused about what the subject of the dispute is by the time the Mediation Cabal came around. Because of that, I opposed this RFAR like Mitchazenia, but was forced into it anyway.

As demonstrated above, the problem is not just NE2, but for all of USRD. It is clear that USRD has become a walled garden after the main editors have come together, largely in part of IRC. Some of the project members (not including me) claim that the supposed USRD consensus almost owns the articles in its scope, while the opposite, which is just a group of editors collaborating over articles to improve the encyclopaedia, should be in effect. The supposed group of contributors who often agree on one issue may not always be right, but in no way should a consensus even attempt to throw bombs at a disagreeing contributor. This is poor behaviour and it should stop now. Right now. I was even harassed once by those editors on IRC about even having my own opinion about a certain issue, and that should never happen.

As for NE2, there is hardly anything wrong with him as a frequent contributor to discussions and articles, no matter how disruptive he may seem. He's one of the best contributors to content here—being one of those who is able to make an article FA if he tries hard enough. He is free to express his opinion in any and all discussions open to the community, and to that end, nobody should be throwing bombs at each other, hence why he said "you'll have to force me out." My tip to NE2, however, would be to try not to be extremist so that Wikipedia can still be smooth sailing. Other than that, I feel that the main fault of all this belongs to the group of USRD editors, not NE2; it is just like what happened with the Kurt Weber situation, though only with a different situation. It is a shame that they would want to do this because he disagrees so often, and I would not want such a valued contributor to get banned from the topic of transportation. 哦，是吗？(O-person) 01:08, 30 December 2007 (GMT)

Preliminary decisions

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (5/0/1/2)

Recuse. Kirill 04:03, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm mulling acceptance only because there seems to be a real problem with USRD. All three RfCs focused not just on NE2's behavior, but also on perceived problems with USRD's interaction with the rest of the encyclopedia. A linked diff above shows NE2 responding to a user who stated "All NE2 does is cause trouble." Mackensen (talk) 05:13, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Accept per Mackensen concerns. The RFCs as well as the above statements indicate that a problem exists beyond one user. FloNight (talk) 21:54, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Accept. Problems seem to be more complicated than just one user. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 22:36, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There are clearly issues here but I cannot tell what specific remedies any of the parties believe that arbitration can bring to the table. The "project box" issue seems readily compromisible (create an alternate template for articles that are ancillary to the roads wikiproject but not at the core of it), and other issues raised are somewhat too diffuse to get a handle on. Abstain for now while awaiting additional input from the involved editors. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:20, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Accept. It looks like we'll have to go down this road. --bainer (talk) 04:25, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Accept. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 20:25, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Accept per Mackensen. James F. (talk) 20:01, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary injunction

1) The project page for WikiProject U.S. Roads will be unprotected to allow normal use, but its scope and approach should not be changed at least until the case is closed. No disputed cases shall be added to or removed from USRD or subprojects, at least until the case is closed.

Until the case closes, any uninvolved administrator who is neither a party to the case, nor a member of the WikiProject, may revert any change that modifies these pages or WikiProjects contentiously, and such a change should not be repeated.

Passed 4 to 0 at 02:22, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Final decision

All numbering based on /Proposed decision (vote counts and comments are there as well)

Principles

Consensus

1) Wikipedia works by building consensus through the use of polite discussion. The dispute resolution process is designed to assist consensus-building when normal talk page communication has not worked. Sustained editorial conflict is not an appropriate method of resolving disputes.

Passed 11-0 at 03:01, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Consensus can change

2) Consensus is not immutable. It is reasonable, and sometimes necessary, for both individual editors and particularly the community as a whole to change its mind.

Passed 11-0 at 03:01, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Breakdowns in consensus

3) Sometimes efforts at dispute resolution amongst a group of editors can fail, and the process of building consensus can stall. Where editors are unable to resolve disagreements amongst themselves, they should turn to others for help, for example by requesting a third opinion or making a request for comment.

Passed 11-0 at 03:01, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Building consensus: external discussion

4) Whilst editors are free to discuss matters of content and policy outside of Wikipedia, only positions expressed on Wikipedia itself are relevant in evaluating consensus.

Passed 8-2 at 03:01, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

WikiProjects

5) A WikiProject is a collection of pages devoted to the management of a specific topic or family of topics within Wikipedia; and, simultaneously, a group of editors that use said pages to collaborate on encyclopedic work. It may maintain various collaborative processes, keep track of work that needs to be done, and act as a forum where issues of interest to the editors of a subject may be discussed.

Passed 10-0 at 03:01, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Building consensus: WikiProjects

6.2) WikiProjects have no special status in developing consensus on matters of content or policy. Any Wikipedia editor may participate in developing a consensus on any matter that interests them.

Passed 6-3 (with 1 abstention) at 03:01, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Ownership of articles

7) Wikipedia editors, whether acting as an individual or as a corpus, do not have the right to control content that they contribute to Wikipedia articles.

Passed 11-0 at 03:01, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Guidelines

8) Editors working to implement guidelines that have wide consensus support within the community need not rehash the discussion of a general guideline each time they apply it.

Passed 8-2 at 03:01, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject status is at times useful but not critical

9) Whilst being part of a WikiProject may help in organization and interest, any editor is free to work on any article they feel can usefully be edited, and improve them to a high standard, and this is unaffected by whether or not the article is agreed to be within the scope of a given WikiProject.

Passed 7-2 at 03:01, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Use of categories and templates

12) Categorizing, templates and tagging for WikiProject purposes on talk pages and other non-article pages is more akin to an expression of editorial interest, and quality and needs of the article, than of definition. WikiProject members can readily decide by consensus or otherwise which articles they choose to be interested in as a group and in each case decide which categories and templates best reflect that article's condition. These matters are always secondary to whether that page is encyclopedic and useful to our general readership, and are editorial aids rather than precise real-world definitions.

Passed 8-2 at 03:01, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Findings of fact

Locus of dispute

1) This dispute has evolved from a number of genuine breakdowns in consensus, including a disagreement about terminology relating to former state highways, a debate about listing distances for highway exits, and a dispute about the scope of WikiProject U.S. Roads.

Passed 10-0 at 03:01, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Spill-over

5) The issues within this case have spilled over beyond the immediate WikiProject, to cause concern and a degree of disruption at other processes, notably good articles, where they have had a potentially unhelpful discouraging impact in at least two good article assessment requests as well as causing additional stress for users involved in the Good Article processes.

Passed 9-1 at 03:01, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Editors counselled

1) Editors who find it difficult to edit a particular article or topic due conflicts with other editors are counselled that they may sometimes need or wish to step away temporarily from that article or subject area. Sometimes, editors in this position may wish to devote some of their knowledge, interest, and effort to creating or editing other articles that may relate to the same broad subject-matter as the dispute, but are less immediately contentious.

Passed 8-2 at 03:01, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

USRD members advised

4) All members of WikiProject U.S. Roads are advised that when asserting the existence of a prior consensus, it is necessary to refer to prior discussions or debates on Wikipedia where that consensus has been established.

Passed 7-0 at 03:01, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Enforcement

Formal enforcement measures not imposed on any editor this time

1) No formal enforcement measures are being proposed at this time, in light of the hope that editors will act of their own volition and take with them a more in-depth understanding of the issues, principles, and the disputes themselves, for future benefit and to avoid the need for more formal responses. The Committee hopes not to see these issues raised again in respect of any member of the Roads WikiProject or the WikiProject itself.

Passed 8-0 (with 1 abstention) at 03:01, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Log of blocks and bans

Log any block, ban or extension under any remedy in this decision here. Minimum information includes name of administrator, date and time, what was done and the basis for doing it.