Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-12-28 WikiProject U.S. Roads

Who are the involved parties?
Rschen7754, NE2, TwinsMetsFan, Scott5114, Mitchazenia, Lpangelrob, Son, JohnnyAlbert10, O

What's going on?
NE2 is ignoring consensus regarding the scope of WP:USRD with edits such as.

Also see Village pump (policy) and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council.

What would you like to change about that?
He needs to listen to consensus.

Mediator notes

 * I have accepted the case and am waiting for all parties to agree to me as mediator. If someone does not agree to my being mediator, I will of course step down and allow someone else to mediate the case. Kei  lana (recall) 21:48, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Discussion
I'll be popping in and out over the next week from Washington, so I may not respond right away to inquiries. --Rschen7754 (T C) 21:19, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * This is pretty biased against me; I don't know if I'll accept. My main arguments can be seen at User:NE2/USRD scope. --NE2 21:29, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * So what would you propose? WP:RFC? WP:ARBCOM? Or your running amuck around USRD and telling us to shut up? --Rschen7754 (T C) 21:37, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

No objections to mediator. --Rschen7754 (T C) 21:41, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * No objections here. This is about the fourth or fifth time that NE2 has bashed heads with the rest of the community, so I hope we can finally get this resolved some way without going up to ArbCom. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 21:45, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * No objections here either. As Scott said, RFC has failed three times to improve NE2's behavior, and I hope we don't have to go to ArbCom to finally resolve this. -- T M F Let's Go Mets - Stats 21:54, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * --Rschen7754 (T C) 21:55, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

One of the major issues seems to be that some people just don't like unnumbered highways, even where more notable than the numbered ones, and not only want them removed from the project but deleted: Articles for deletion/Brockway Mountain Drive, Articles for deletion/Howard Street (Baltimore), Articles for deletion/East Fork Road --NE2 21:59, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * That is not an issue. Quit trying to distract the issue. --Rschen7754 (T C) 22:02, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * That's part of the issue. If you're going to restrict this mediation to my conduct, I'll have to decline. --NE2 22:15, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Because you would lose? --Rschen7754 (T C) 22:17, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Because it's set up for my "loss". --NE2 22:18, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Also see Requests for comment/NE2, Requests for comment/NE2 (second RFC), and Requests for comment/NE2 3. --Rschen7754 (T C) 22:04, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm an involved party? How? &mdash; Rob (  talk  ) 22:13, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * You commented on the issue. I just put in everyone who had commented through involvement in USRD. Sorry... (involvement doesn't imply bad things about you...) --Rschen7754 (T C) 22:17, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Two things. Everyone needs to listen civilly to everyone's side (not that you haven't, just a preemptive reminder). Second, if you were only marginally involved in the comments, and you do not wish to participate, then strike yourself from the list. Kei  lana (recall) 22:42, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I have no objections. This is an issue that needs a resolution. --Son (talk) 22:41, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Scott5114 changed the scope despite this mediation being filed. It's pretty clear that there's no attempt to come to a resolution. --NE2 00:16, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * That's crap, and you know it. What was WT:USRD all about? --Rschen7754 (T C) 00:19, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * You guys deciding on IRC what the project scope would be and then steamrolling it. --NE2 00:22, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * No, we did all discussion on-wiki. Note that Rob contributed crucially to the conversation and he doesn't use IRC at all. None of the content issues here are the point of this mediation - the point is that you're blatantly ignoring consensus that you don't agree with, as you're doing here. Six other other users agreed to this change on the talk page. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 00:23, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * You appear to have used IRC to give a false perception of consensus at the beginning and follow me around, so everyone coming in afterwards would think your view is the only legitimate one. See also Will's comment below. --NE2 00:26, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * That's utterly false. Also, you need to assume good faith. And we only "followed you around" because you were trying to start a forest fire. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 00:29, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * "You can tell that you are experiencing a ForestFire when you suddenly lose track of where the rapidly expanding "front" of the argument is. You feel that you are making the same point in multiple places." That's exactly how I felt. I asked specific questions in the places that they could best be answered, and you guys followed me around and turned it into the same dispute we were already having. --NE2 00:32, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * And if you hadn't been misrepresenting everyone else's opinion, we would have had no need to do that. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 00:34, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I wasn't misrepresenting your opinions; I was asking a simple question, and you twisted it into "forum shopping". Look at the comments by the non-road people on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council. It would be pretty funny how ridiculous you guys are if you weren't calling it consensus. What's funny is that your precious wikiwork statistics would have improved if we hadn't had this dispute. --NE2 00:37, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Whatever you say. You've said you'll ignore consensus yourself three times, and said that "you'll have to force me out".—Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 00:52, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * You know, nothing prevents you from joining IRC. --Rschen7754 (T C) 00:40, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, I'm pretty sure I wouldn't be welcome there, even if you claim I am. --NE2 00:42, 29 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment by uninvolved editor: The article East Fork Road seems to have be a token in this disagreement. Several of the participants in this mediation have participated in that discussion and some appear to vote as a bloc, ignoring the notability standard that they recently approved. That's unhelpful.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 00:21, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Which notability standard were you referring to? WP:USRD/NT was basically rejected from use at AfD by people who said that WikiProject notability guidelines didn't have enough input to be used at AfD. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 00:40, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's the guideline I meant, the one referred to by Rschen7754. I hadn't realized it's controversial. If that isn't the appropriate standard then there's the standby, Notability, which the article also meets. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 00:58, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * It's "controversial" because he was unable to get Articles for deletion/Howard Street (Baltimore) deleted. --NE2 01:16, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Reason that failed was because we did not know about the tunnel fire. --Rschen7754 (T C) 01:22, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Then I don't know which AFD Scott5114 is referring to. --NE2 01:36, 29 December 2007 (UTC)


 * This is kind of late but I accept the emdiator. — J A 10  Talk • Contribs 00:47, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I am closing the case because NE2 has said that he refuses to participate in the mediation (see the discussion here and here). I suggest that if you still wish to resolve the issue that you take it to higher levels of Dispute resolution. Please contact me if you need any help or have concerns. Thank you. Regards, Kei  lana (recall) 01:52, 29 December 2007 (UTC)


 * To clarify, I refuse to participate because others refuse to discuss the larger issue. --NE2 01:53, 29 December 2007 (UTC)