Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Highways 2/Workshop

This is a page for working on Arbitration decisions. The Arbitrators, parties to the case, and other editors may draft proposals and post them to this page for review and comments. Proposals may include proposed general principles, findings of fact, remedies, and enforcement provisions&mdash;the same format as is used in Arbitration Committee decisions. The bottom of the page may be used for overall analysis of the /Evidence and for general discussion of the case.

Any user may edit this workshop page. Please sign all suggestions and comments. Arbitrators will place proposed items they believe should be part of the final decision on the /Proposed decision page, which only Arbitrators may edit, for voting.

Template
1)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
2)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
3)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Moratorium on tagging or de-tagging disputed articles
1) No removal of borderline cases from USRD or subprojects, nor addition except in the case of new articles, shall be made.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * I'm not sure if this is necessary, but it might be good to ensure it doesn't flare up during the case. --NE2 03:50, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with this. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 05:24, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree. --Son (talk) 14:36, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. --Rschen7754 (T C) 17:28, 3 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Agree. Edit Centric (talk) 10:19, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Monatorium on reverting disputed adding or removal of project tags
1.1) No reverting of disputed added or removed tags from USRD or subprojects by parties of this case shall be made.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * I felt this might need to be included in the current injunction. Just so that it doesn't result in a revert war with outside editors. I realise common sense shouldn't result in a need for this but after recent events i thought it wouldn't harm adding a specific rule. Seddon69 (talk) 22:54, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

No scope change
2) No changing the scope on WP:USRD (unless someone can get a more accurate template) until the end of the case. Then, the page can be unprotected.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * It does need to be unprotected. --Rschen7754 (T C) 17:28, 3 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Agree that project page should remain protected from edits until resolution of this RFAR. Edit Centric (talk) 20:14, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * At WT:USRD there is a request for a legitimate edit to be made that does not affect the case. --Rschen7754 (T C) 20:28, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Proposed decision
3)
 * 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.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Proposed to capture the essence of 1+2. I hope the parties know what they are asking for; these seem reasonable measures with fair dispute enforcement, and if they can help unfreeze things for editing in some non-contentious areas, then I'm fine with it. Minor wording changes to cover:
 * Reword "borderline" to "disputed". "Disputed" seems the better criterion. One might argue what is borderline, but it will be clear if a change is disputed. Also, a non-borderline but disputed case should probably remain unchanged at least until after the case; a borderline but non-disputed case is probably fine.
 * Simplify additions and removals. Borderline (ie, disputed) items are a problem; but other adds and removes probably aren't, which means we also no longer need a special case for "new articles".
 * Enforcement is covered by the provision "should not be repeated", and note that any change, including classifications, categories, tagging, processes, or the like that is "contentious", may be reverted and should not be repeated if so. FT2 (Talk 00:43, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * The scope is currently blank. What would it be changed to? --NE2 00:45, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Just leave it how it is. This keeps the project running so we can at least try to improve articles while this goes on. --Rschen7754 (T C) 00:46, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * "Disputed" new articles should be able to be added, since I use User:AlexNewArtBot/USRoadsSearchResult to find articles to add, and it's a lot easier to add them as they get listed there and then remove them after the case is over if necessary. --NE2 00:47, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * If nobody objects then by definition they won't be "disputed". If someone does they are and probably should be removed at least during the case. If adding new roads like this is a normal thing then (if others agree) add them, and remove those which are considered contentious or give rise to problematic dispute until the case is over. The aim of this kind of temporary injunction is to maximize editing but avoid new disputes over contentious items or changes. If it's not disputed, it's probably safe. (Alternatively if you want to be more careful, put them on the talk page for approval, and then manually add those which aren't borderline/contentious.) FT2 (Talk 00:54, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The issue is that it's a lot easier to do something regularly than to stop for a month and then catch up. --NE2 00:56, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Indeed. The other (and more significant) issue is, the existence of this case is evidence that some disagreements spiral. So the condition for unprotecting and freeing up the pages generally, is likely to be some kind of condition, "things that are contentious are going to have to be set aside for a while". They can to an extent be formatted, documented and worked on, on the talk page, and if the majority of the new articles aren't contentious, they can be directly added without problems. FT2 (Talk 01:04, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Are you talking auto trails or city streets? --Rschen7754 (T C) 00:51, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Major city streets like Boulevard of the Allies and major rural highways like Old Plank Road. Auto trails will still be tagged under USRD. --NE2 00:53, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Just ... FT2's idea is probably better. --Rschen7754 (T C) 00:56, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Template
4)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

=Proposed final decision=

Primary purpose
1) The primary purpose of Wikipedia, and its WikiProjects, is to write the encyclopedia.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Pretty obvious. --NE2 03:59, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Too obvious. 哦，是吗？ (O-person) 22:41, 03 January 2008 (GMT)


 * Comment by others:
 * Concur.Edit Centric (talk) 10:22, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Absolutely. Keilana talk(recall) 15:36, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Project scope
2) The scope of a WikiProject should come naturally from its title, or the template code used to tag an article talk page for that project, and be easy to understand by editors that have some knowledge of the topic. It should remain relatively stable, and not be based on the whims of the editors that are currently part of it.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * This prevents confusion and "gaming the system" to dump unwanted articles that naturally fit. --NE2 03:59, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * But this doesn't work...the U.S. Roads project probably would have been named U.S. Highways if that name hadn't been taken. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 05:11, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * So? "Highway is a term commonly used to designate major roads intended for travel by the public between important destinations, such as cities." Nothing about numbering or maintenance; it basically matches what we had recently: a road intended for through traffic. --NE2 06:00, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * But a name is just a name...Wal-Mart doesn't sell walls, New York City isn't new, pesos aren't accepted in Mexico, Missouri, and so forth. Should a project decide through consensus to change its scope it shouldn't be locked out of doing so simply because its title indicates something. (I disagree that there's much of a difference between a road and a street anyway, considering there's several streets in Oklahoma City named roads (Britton, Hefner, Memorial, Airport...) —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 06:51, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Names can be easily changed here, but not in the real world. --NE2 07:13, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * [Indent reset] The name of the project is a diversion from what the topic is supposed to be about. We created WikiProject U.S. Streets in the attempt at corralling U.S. Streets into a single project of its own which involves editors from cities WikiProjects and state WikiProjects who otherwise wouldn't be involved in WP:USRD.  --Son (talk) 01:05, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * If we're looking at the scope of WikiProject U.S. Roads, then all roads (auto trails, city streets, etc) are fair game, however, the practice of USRD is to impose "policy" onto state highway WikiProjects. Under this argument, the scope is wide open in each of the state WikiProjects.  (This does raise the issue of WikiProjects controlling other projects, yes I know). This IMHO blinds the scope of each of the state highway WikiProjects and prevents them from setting their own goals.  In essence, USRD is meant to cover all roads, but the individual state highway wikiprojects weren't - this creates a conflict of interest - one that shouldn't exist because the state highway projects should not be subprojects.  If they are, make them task forces. —  master son T - C 12:02, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Is there any reason an article couldn't fall under USRD but not a subproject (i.e. tagged as USRD without a state parameter)? —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 12:11, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * A better idea may be to rename each of the state WikiProjects as WikiProject Roads. —  master son T - C 12:17, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I disagree. USRD has transformed over the past two years, from where USRD was a shell, to where USRD became the center of the state WikiProjects.  The fact is, the state WikiProjects should be be called subprojects, not WikiProjects.  The task forces that exist don't need to change at all.  So WikiProject Pennsylvania State Highways would be changed to Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Pennsylvania Roads Subproject...other states would follow this model.  USRD is quite a conundrum.  On the one hand, we have lots of organization, guidelines, etc., but on the other hand, while the general guidelines for articles are followed (out of the Wikipedia MOS), the state level projects can do as they want, including each state being able to use its own infobox.  If we're really going to attempt at making a better working project, because while I think it works decently, there's a lot standing in the way of the project by having it so spread out in this way.  --Son (talk) 13:55, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Better yet, Son.  —  master son T - C 15:50, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * (I am involved but I wanted to reply...) My personal opinion is that the state highway WikiProjects should be merged under USRD. However, I know that many users would object to this, so I have not made a move to bring that about. --Rschen7754 (T C) 17:31, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Assessment categories
3) The purpose of assessment categories like Category:U.S. road transport articles by quality and Category:U.S. road transport articles by importance is to help improve articles by keeping track of articles that project members can help with. They are not intended for competing between WikiProjects, which can cause behavior that does not help the encyclopedia.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Seems obvious. --NE2 03:59, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The assessment categories are part of Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Work via Wikiprojects. The categories exist to serve the WikiProjects, not the other way around. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 05:13, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, and the WikiProjects exist to serve the encyclopedia. --NE2 06:01, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * How have the competitions between WikiProjects harmed the encyclopedia? --Rschen7754 (T C) 17:37, 3 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

WikiProject tags
4) The main purpose of a WikiProject tag on a talk page is to bring new editors to the WikiProject so they can write better articles. A secondary purpose is to categorize the talk page into assessment categories.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Per comments at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council --NE2 04:04, 3 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Consensus must make sense
5) When coming to a consensus, editors must give valid reasoning, or their opinion may be discounted.
 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * For instance, from Deletion guidelines for administrators: "Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but by looking at strength of argument, and underlying policy (if any). Arguments that contradict policy, are based on opinion rather than fact, or are logically fallacious, are frequently discounted. For instance, if someone finds the entire page to be a copyright violation, a page is always deleted. If an argument for deletion is that the page lacks sources, but an editor adds the missing references, said argument is no longer relevant." --NE2 04:10, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Very much so. However, this goes nowhere as Arbcom cannot rule that the consensus had invalid reasons (and the reasons given were valid). --Rschen7754 (T C) 18:04, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Here's a perfect example of invalid arguments: "they're on the signs" and "they're needed". --NE2 22:30, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I have to agree that the comments made may not be the most convincing. Also, consensus can change over time, and therefore consensus decisions are not applied for an infinite amount of time.  They can be questioned, commented, checked for sanity, etc. to make sure that they still make sense for use in current times. 哦，是吗？ (O-person) 22:55, 03 January 2008 (GMT)
 * That sets a horrible precedent. --Rschen7754 (T C) 22:58, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * You can't say that "Consensus must make sense," because, by definition, consensus is built off people who agree with the decision against those who don't or are neutral. If someone is making no argument (simply, "we should do this" and not give an explanation), or an argument which makes no sense (simply saying something off the wall such as "let's just delete all articles on this topic"), then the group as a whole should be able to recognize that as such, and thus it shouldn't be able to become consensus.
 * Additionally, it's a matter of opinion what designates a valid or invalid opinion; declaring someone's opinion valid or invalid is not assuming good faith and can spark incivility. --Son (talk) 00:24, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The problem here is that the group isn't recognizing invalid arguments (not opinions) as invalid. --NE2 00:26, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Again, that's your opinion. Most of us disagree. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 01:02, 5 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * This is a point on which NE2 and I have run afoul in the past. While I am in complete agreement with the prima facia statement that it (consensus) "must make sense", the (perceived) validity of the consensus is the underlying question. (See below.) Edit Centric (talk) 10:57, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * This isn't all that clear-cut. We can't have people making silly arguments and still get their way, but we also can't have one or two people declaring that everyone else's arguments are invalid. -Amarkov moo! 01:06, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Consensus can change
6) A previously-accepted consensus may be altered if opinions surrounding it change.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Per WP:CCC. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 07:14, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Of course there has to be a valid reason for it to change. --NE2 07:15, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * "Valid" is subjective though. Part of the problem here is that we don't see eye to eye on what a valid change is and what is not. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 07:23, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Changes that don't help the encyclopedia are invalid if anyone objects. --NE2 07:25, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * "Not helping the encylopedia" is also a matter of one's own opinion. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 07:44, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Changes that don't help the encyclopedia are invalid if anyone objects. People agree and disagree on changes.  By one person disagreeing does not make either position invalid.  But you need to achieve consensus to make a decision.  And that means that some people will agree and others will disagree.  --Son (talk) 13:59, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:
 * Consensus can change---and it doesn't necessarily take a 'valid' reason to do so. A lot of times consensus is built upon subjective arguments/opinions.  For example, a single person can affect the outcome of a discussion through shere force of will.  S/he might make a convincing argument that people accept.  3 months later that person may no longer be involved when the same subject comes up again---or the people who are partaking in the discussion may not be swayed by the person's position.  Consensus, based upon its very nature, is very subjective and tenuous.Balloonman (talk) 05:49, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Consensus should be followed
7) If a consensus is formed, it should be followed unless an extenuating circumstance (such as an overriding policy) prevents it.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * I believe this basically sums up the issue. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 07:22, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Again, the consensus must have a valid base. --NE2 07:23, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * See my comment on Principle 6. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 07:24, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * To clarify what I was trying to say when I wrote this: if a consensus is formed it should be followed. EXCEPT when there is an overriding policy that says the consensus is illegal. Consensus that is against policy should obviously not be followed. A more fruitful endeavor would be to try to change the policy. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 00:35, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * This one could go round and round between items 6 and 7, ad nauseum. Perhaps all parties concerned should reach agreement on what comprises a "valid" consensus, so that there are no future questions or misconceptions. Edit Centric (talk) 10:52, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Hold on, if consensus and policy conflict, consensus should be followed, unless it involves our privacy policy or something like that.-- Phoenix -  wiki  13:35, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Policy should be changed to meet consensus, not the other way around. Seddon69 (talk) 16:56, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I wasn't going to post here, but this comment struck a nerve. The problem with this notion is "what is consensus?"  Is consensus the opinion of 6 people involved with a project overriding the guidelines established by potentially scores of people involved with a multitude of areas?  A wikiproject cannot override a guideline or policy based upon the representation of that projects participants alone.  Yes, we do have the concept of WP:IAR but I do not buy into the notion that a Wikiproject can write it's own guidelines/project.  Ultimately the edicts of a bona fide wikiproject are on par of a well established essay.  They represent the consensus of a community within the overall wikipedia universe.  If consensus truly is to change the policy, then it must be done so via true consensus building of wikipedia, not at the project level!Balloonman (talk) 05:26, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * This is not relevant to the case at hand. --Rschen7754 (T C) 05:31, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * If the contention is that consensus can override policy, which two people above have stated, then yes it is relevant. Consensus of similarly minded people, generally does not override an accepted guideline/policy.Balloonman (talk) 05:43, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Consensus has not overridden policy in this case. --Rschen7754 (T C) 05:49, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * This case was largely accepted upon because of Mackensen's concern when he said, "on perceived problems with USRD's interaction with the rest of the encyclopedia." You may have intended it as an inditement against one user, but the committee accepted because of general concerns about the project as a whole. And unfortunately, I saw the notion that wikiprojects are above Wikipedia coming through during a recent RFA.  Consensus in a project does not override the wider community.Balloonman (talk) 06:14, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Problems of what sort? Here, there were no problems with the rest of the encyclopedia, unless you count WP:USST. --Rschen7754 (T C) 06:18, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't know what the perceived problem is, ask Machensen. But I am concerned when two people (at least one of whom is part of the USRD) echo sentiments that I encountered from two other USRD members during an RfA.  If this is the issue Machensen was referencing, then I can see how it might be a problem.Balloonman (talk) 07:00, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I think a lot of people misunderstood this, causing needless strife. I posted a clarification above. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 00:35, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Consensus should be followed
7.1) If a consensus is formed, it should be followed unless an extenuating circumstance (such as overriding one of Wikipedia's core policies) prevents it.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Per above. --Rschen7754 (T C) 19:08, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Absolutely, without a doubt, no question! --Son (talk) 00:14, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Agree, per Son. Edit Centric (talk) 10:26, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Support with the caveat that consensus is subject to change---especially as the wider wiki community is involved.Balloonman (talk) 00:29, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Achieving consensus
8) Consensus cannot be achieved in areas where only the minority of users involved are present, such as IRC


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed.-- Phoenix -  wiki  13:37, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I concur. This was a major problem with regards to USRD, lately it has settled, but I can't rule it out yet.  —  master son T - C 14:17, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't disagree with this. As Master_son said, it has been settled lately, but it has been a major problem since IRC came in heavy use over the past few years.  I was on the proverbial "outside looking in" when I didn't use IRC. And whether true or not, there is a perception that IRC leads to consensus debates that should be taking place on-Wiki.  This perception hurts the project.  --Son (talk) 14:30, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * As someone who uses the IRC I believe there is a great misconception on what "deciding consensus on IRC" exists. Since i started editing with Highways and the US roads projects never have i seen "policy" or "decisions" being made purely on IRC. IRC is a place where ideas are thrown around and tlked about but never implemented, and that is what it should be used for otherwise there is little or no point for its existence. If policy was dictated from IRC there wouldn't be the pages and pages of discussion that exist on the Highways talk page about a single subject. Seddon69 (talk) 17:09, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * It seems then that the problem might be the fine line between decisions and discussions. The fact also exists that those who don't access IRC, whether by choice or not, still have no chance of getting involved in that discussion.  —  master son T - C 17:16, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I suppose that there are several ways of dealing with this, all of which arnt particularly welcoming problem free options with the latter being no different to now.
 * You can ban discussion on IRC which does nothing but harm the advantages of IRC
 * Keep a record of all discussions on IRC which are to made available to other users.
 * Leave it to the discretion and assume the good faith of the users which are on there which to me seems to be the most in keeping with the policies of wikipedia. Seddon69 (talk) 17:34, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Pardon me, but NO ONE here can ban discussion on IRC. Freenode is NOT under the purview of the Wikimedia foundation, nor any of its editors. Channel rules CAN be drafted, agreed upon by the participants, and enforced by channel ops (that is how that has worked for 10+ years), however ArbCom can neither enact nor apply any rulings off-wiki, enforcement would be problematic at best. Edit Centric (talk) 20:22, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, there is no way of keeping records of conversations because of privacy invasions (and the stuff with Daniel Brandt). In order to make it possible, one must get permission from everyone in the IRC channel at a time, including any that have only popped in to idle. 哦，是吗？ (O-person) 23:05, 03 January 2008 (GMT)
 * Therefore it just needs to be left to the users who use the IRC to be sensible when discussing topics on the IRC and to ensure that consensus is decided off wiki. There is nothing wrong with tlking about a topic on the channel so long as any decisions and negotiating consensus is done off wiki. Also editors who cant use the IRC or choose not too need to assume the good faith of all the editors on there. This needs to be resolved in a two way thing along with most of the problems that have arisen from this RfAR Seddon69 (talk) 23:52, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think we've ever made consensus on IRC, except in the two instances or so where we had a scheduled discussion time for a particular set of topics; we have not had one of these meetings since the beginning of last year. Most of the people claiming that consensus is made there haven't ever even been to the IRC channel. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 01:58, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Personal attacks
9) Personal attacks are expressly prohibited because they make Wikipedia a hostile environment for editors, and thereby damage Wikipedia both as an encyclopedia (by losing valued contributors) and as a wiki community (by discouraging reasoned discussion). Wikipedia editors should conduct their relationship with other editors with courtesy, and must avoid responding in kind when personally attacked.
 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed. --Rschen7754 (T C) 17:54, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * No argument here. --Son (talk) 00:13, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Agreed. Edit Centric (talk) 10:26, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring
10) Edit wars or revert wars are usually considered harmful, because they cause ill-will between users and negatively destabilize articles. Editors are encourage to explore alternate methods of dispute resolution, such as negotiation, surveys, requests for comment, mediation, or arbitration. When disagreements arise, users are expected to adhere to the three-revert rule and discuss their differences rationally rather than reverting ad nauseum. "Slow revert wars," where an editor persistently reverts an article but technically adheres to the three-revert rule are also strongly discouraged and are unlikely to constitute working properly with others.
 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed. --Rschen7754 (T C) 17:54, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Absolutely. --Son (talk) 00:12, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Agree absolutely! Edit Centric (talk) 20:23, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Contests
11) Friendly competition definitely has the potential to improve the encyclopedia.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed. --Rschen7754 (T C) 17:57, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:
 * I agree with this statement, something which can be extremely useful if applied correctly, it friendly competition. Even between projects it can provide a stimulus to create higher quality articles. What mustn't be done is incorrect assessing and deleting or not taking on board stub articles. I believe that the so called "leader board" is certainly something that isn't bad. After all we have lists of editors with the most number of edits. If this leader board is to be gotten rid of then similar questions must be brought upon other tables like it. Seddon69 (talk) 18:46, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Civility and reasonableness
12) Civility and reasonableness:
 * Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably in their dealings with other users and to observe the principles of assuming good faith, civility, and the writers' rules of engagement. If disputes arise, users are expected to use dispute resolution procedures instead of making personal attacks.
 * Insulting and intimidating other users harms the community by creating a hostile environment. All users are instructed to refrain from this activity. Admins are instructed to use good judgement while enforcing this policy. All users are encouraged to remove personal attacks on sight.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed. --Rschen7754 (T C) 18:01, 3 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Agree. Edit Centric (talk) 10:27, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Objecting to consensus
13) The proper way to object to a consensus is to get it changed, not to revert war or to ignore it.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed. --Rschen7754 (T C) 00:14, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * If others are unvilling to even explain why they believe in the supposed consensus, it's kind of hard to get it changed. --NE2 00:16, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Agree as proposed. Edit Centric (talk) 10:28, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

The role of WikiProjects
14) WikiProjects are a resource to help coordinate and organize the writing and editing of Wikipedia articles on a specific topic, but they are first and foremost a part of the larger Wikipedia editors' community. The development of WalledGardens is highly discouraged.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed.  krimpet ✽  18:57, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Of course. Wikiprojects shouldn't become a special club, ignoring the opinions of everyone who isn't in the club. However, I'm not quite sure that has happened in this case. -Amarkov moo! 21:21, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The comment above about "consensus overriding policy" and some of the other comments I've seen here make me wonder if it has. IMHO, a wikiproject's position holds the weight of a well established essay.  Otherwise you might have conflicting projects writing conflicting guidelines that conflict with actual policies and guidelines.Balloonman (talk) 05:31, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * P.S. I agree with Krimpet.Balloonman (talk) 05:44, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

IRC is not consensus
15) If something is discussed off wiki and then applied, it is not consensus (but is likely WP:BOLD). Thus, it should not be considered consensus.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed. --Rschen7754 (T C) 02:58, 7 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Agreed. Edit Centric (talk) 04:23, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Strongly agreed...I don't participate in IRC discussions, but I can imagine they help cut through the cruff...Balloonman (talk) 05:45, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Support, and to note that IRC is a faster means of communication when multiple individuals are involved, but it should not be used to generate consensus on a controversal topic.  Seicer  (talk) (contribs) 03:47, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

WikiProjects
16) WikiProjects have a right to make decisions that will only affect the stated WikiProject.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Should be evident. --Rschen7754 (T C) 21:12, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Strongly support. --Son (talk) 23:08, 15 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Inclined to agree. Edit Centric (talk) 21:31, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Support.  Seicer  (talk) (contribs) 03:47, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what the above means... I find it too vague too support... especially in light of my concern that this particular wikiproject has implied elsewhere that it can override policy/guidelines via "consensus".Balloonman (talk) 07:40, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * After giving this more thought, I have to STRONGLY OPPOSE this idea. Wikiprojects are not islands.  They cannot establish their own guidelines/policies... and nothing that they do "will only affect the stated Wikiproject."  Let's suppose that a Wikiproject decides that it only wants dedicated members---thus establishes some sort of membership criteria or nomination system to keep out the undesirables.  "It only affects this project" might be the refrain, but that would idea violate the spirit of Wikipedia as a whole.  But let's suppose that some idea is passed, that "only affects the stated" project, then that idea becomes the foundation for OTHER projects to implement similar notions/ideas.  What about the project deciding to establish some sort of template to go on all pages?  Again, the wikiproject is free to make that decision--and will probably have the consensus to put said template on subject pages.  But then you run the risk of a page being covered by two Wikiprojects---and the second wikiproject rejects said template.  Plus, any decision about page formatting, content, style, etc by it's very definition affects more than just the wikiproject in question.  So no, ultimately, wikiprojects do not have that type of authority.  Wikiprojects, even when they have unanimous consensus of the project, do not carry the weight of a policy or guidelines---but rather a centralized essay with many contributors.  Thus, I cannot see any way that this vague proposal should/could pass.Balloonman (talk) 14:52, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

WikiProjects
16.1) WikiProjects have a right to make editorial decisions that will only affect the stated WikiProject.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * To capture the spirit of 16.0, but clarifying that WikiProjects can't go off the deep end and do things like have membership requirements as Balloonman mentioned. Rather, WikiProjects should be able to come to a consensus on what infobox they want to use, the sections they want each page to have and in what order they should appear. USRD has over nine thousand articles; if we didn't have a set of guidelines we could point to and say "here's what we generally agree the page should look like", then the pages would vary dramatically depending on what editor wrote the article. These guidelines are much too specialized for the MoS level (as people at MoS have told us). —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 15:18, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed. --Rschen7754 (T C) 19:06, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * This is getting closer to something I can support, but I still can't give it 100% backing. Wikiprojects CAN (and SHOULD) establish guidelines and come to general consensus on what they would like to see on pages under their purview.  The problem that I have is threefold, A) some wikiprojects are better/more diverse than others B) many articles would fall under the purview of multiple jurisdictions and C) saying that they have the right is too strong of a term.  I can see this getting abused.Balloonman (talk) 22:40, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

WikiProjects
16.2 Wikiprojects have the responsibility for providing a forum to discuss consensus regarding editorial content/formatting of subject pages.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * I can't support this as it takes the power out of the WikiProject. --Rschen7754 (T C) 22:45, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * What power? The power to reach consensus and provide a forum for discussion?  That's all the real power Wikiprojects have.  The notion that wikiprojects have power to impose their notions/ideas is not in the spirit of a community based project such as wikipedia.Balloonman (talk) 23:05, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * It should be noted that there are over 1000 wikiprojects and over 200 of them are classified as "inactive." Anybody can set up a project and there are some projects with just a few people in them.  There are some pretty bizarre projects that are so obscure that it isn't even funny.  Do these projects, with only a handful of people, have "power"?Balloonman (talk) 23:59, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * That is a reductio ad absurdum argument. Of course not. But USRD certainly is not a "pretty bizarre" project. You are proposing that WikiProjects become essays. This is a bad precedent to set. --Rschen7754 (T C) 00:05, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * What is an essay? It is the opinion of one or more Wikipedians on a subject of shared interest that does not hold binding weight on others.  Sounds about right to me, isn't that what wikiprojects do?  They come to understanding on shared interest.  Wikiprojects do not, and should not, have the authority to issue guidelines or policies.  They do not have the right to override guidelines/policy.  Guidelines/policies are derived from the larger community as a whole, not from an isolated Wikiproject.  Thus, if they can't carry the weight of a guideline/policy, that leaves them where they should be--- the weight of an essay.Balloonman (talk) 00:25, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


 * A WikiProject has no inherent power. What power a WikiProject has is derived from its consensus-making ability. I think when a WikiProject makes a decision, this isn't an essay, but one step above. Call it a "specialized guideline". (There was a proposal for a template for this on VP a while ago...I can't remember the term they had.) For that matter, policy has no "power". Policy is policy because the community came to a consensus and decided to support that principle. (Except in the case of office actions and such, but those are a corner case that don't come up often in everyday editing.) WikiProjects should absolutely be able to write down a decision that they come to and be able to point to it and say "this is what we decided, and we think this is how things should work." That doesn't mean it's immutable — we're in the process of eliminating major cities boxes, which we've recommended for about a year or so. Consensus can change, and when it's merited, should change.


 * The big question is the degree to which the Wikipedia community and greater metropolitan area should be involved in a WikiProject's decision. WikiProjects don't have the right to ban "outsiders". USRD is, in fact, always willing to discuss things with people outside the project, and this is necessary for GA/FA processes, getting things in our projectspace deleted through MFD, and so forth. But in the case of drawing up guidelines and so forth, most of Wikipedia either doesn't care about the proposal, or know enough about the issue at hand to make an informed judgement. I can't see the average person who isn't involved in the project knowing much about California postmiles and the issues involving them, or caring about why Rschen and NE2 were debating them. This is because they go into arcane DOT accounting practices like postmile equations and it's all really really boring to your normal Wikipedian, who hasn't got the time to learn all of this stuff that's second-nature to us. That's why WikiProjects are the right place for decisions like this to be made.


 * The issue that we're having with NE2 is that a lot of times the cards are down, there's no applicable policy the rest of Wikipedia has came up with, and the rest of the WikiProject has agreed to some decision and NE2 keeps blocking that decision from being applied. It's disruptive and frustrating and the reason this request was filed in the first place was because we were tired of it happening over and over and we don't want it to happen again. We'd like to be able to agree on something, call it a day and go back into mainspace and focus on the encyclopedia. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 00:59, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Excellent post Scott.Balloonman (talk) 01:28, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * What do you have to say about WP:MILHIST? --Rschen7754 (T C) 04:48, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * My position remains the same regardless of which project you are talking about. Ultimately, wikiprojects issue opinions of a small segment of the community.  Even if a project reaches a unanimous consensus, that consensus is not enough to override the broader communities stances on guidelines/policies.  Any project that thinks it is above the broader wiki-community is wrong.Balloonman (talk) 04:58, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Do you then challenge the MOS status on their MOS guideline? Or their project coordinators? --Rschen7754 (T C) 05:07, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The MOS status was based entirely on input from the community as a whole; and, similarly, the community has countenanced the continued existence of the coordinators. I don't believe the project has ever asserted that it is above the community in any way (although the community tends to leave us to our own devices for the most part). Kirill 05:39, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't believe that USRD has asserted being above the community, although nobody cares about roads and leaves us to ourselves. --Rschen7754 (T C) 05:44, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Support as proposer. Projects have the responsibility to discuss formatting and normalization standards for subject pages.  They don't have the right to dictate to the rest of the project how pages should appear.  For example, suppose the wikiproject decided to use a specific template on its pages.  The larger wikicommunity could still decide to delete said template during an MfD.  The Wikiproject can argue for it, but it does not have the right to impose its standards.  Another example of this is the debates that constantly ensue between the folks at WP:N/WP:BIO and various wikiprojects who seek to define notability within their area of expertise.Balloonman (talk) 22:40, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Now this I support —  master son T - C 05:45, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

WikiProjects and IRC
17) WikiProjects have the right to have discussions and collaborate (but not come to a consensus) on IRC.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed. --Rschen7754 (T C) 21:15, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Support. --Son (talk) 23:09, 15 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Support. Edit Centric (talk) 21:31, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Support.  Seicer  (talk) (contribs) 03:46, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

WikiProjects and IRC
18) WikiProjects cannot force someone to join IRC.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed. --Rschen7754 (T C) 21:15, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Support. --Son (talk) 23:09, 15 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Self-evident. Edit Centric (talk) 21:33, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

WikiProjects and IRC
19) If a member of a WikiProject does not join IRC, then it is not the WikiProject's fault.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed. --Rschen7754 (T C) 21:17, 13 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Again, lends its self to item 18. True statement. Edit Centric (talk) 21:33, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

No obligations to join IRC
19.1) No member of a WikiProject is obligated to join an IRC channel operated by said WikiProject. However, IRC provides a collaborative atmosphere that a user cannot benefit from by not joining.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * I think this sounds a bit more neutral and clarifies the intent of 19.0. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 21:40, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think that this is better on its own, because 19.0 clarifies that the WikiProject cannot be held responsible for users who choose not to join IRC. However, it could definitely supplement it. --Rschen7754 (T C) 21:44, 13 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

No obligations to join IRC
19.2) No member of a WikiProject is obligated to join an IRC channel operated by said WikiProject. However, IRC provides a collaborative atmosphere that a user cannot benefit from by not joining. A user is solely responsible for forgoing the benefits provided by the channel should they opt not to join that channel.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * How about this? —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 22:00, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Seems fine. ---Rschen7754 (T C) 22:02, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * We're speaking about benefits to users, when we should be speaking about benefits to the encyclopedia. --NE2 15:05, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Benefits to users of the encyclopedia is benefiting the encyclopedia. I support 19.2.  --Son (talk) 23:13, 15 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Pardon me, but if it weren't for the users, the encyclopedia would not exist as it does. By benefiting the users, it benefits the encyclopedia in this case. Edit Centric (talk) 16:22, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Intra-project GA reviewing
20) Participants of a WikiProject should not review GANs in their scope, as it may constitute a COI.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed. 哦，是吗？ (O-person) 02:24, 20 January 2008 (GMT)
 * I personally agree, but I don't know if this is a guideline that ArbCom can rule on. --Rschen7754 (T C) 02:29, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * ArbCom cases set precedents in Wikipedia community chemistry. 哦，是吗？ (O-person) 02:30, 20 January 2008 (GMT)
 * I agree with the spirit, but I think that's really up to the Good Articles WikiProject to decide on. Of course if ArbCom wants to mandate it, that's within their reach and you'd get no complaints from me. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 02:33, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * According to Reviewing good articles, "Reviewers should avoid reviewing articles that they have been actively involved in editing, and should also probably avoid reviewing articles that belong to WikiProjects they are active members of." "Should probably avoid" is not "should not". I've already posted that link in the earlier discussion; did nobody actually read it? --NE2 06:12, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * If ArbCom supports this principle, the "should probably avoid" will definitely become a "should not". 哦，是吗？ (O-person) 04:45, 21 January 2008 (GMT)


 * Comment by others:
 * I concur with the principle - and see the concerns as well. —  master son T - C 02:48, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I concur, and we've already seen what happens when conflicts of interest arise.  Seicer  (talk) (contribs) 02:54, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I oppose this. Conflicts of interest should, of course, be avoided. However, being a member of a WikiProject and reviewing an article within the scope of that WikiProject is not, a priori, a conflict of interest, unless the reviewer has contributed significantly to the article. It is a matter for the Good articles project to provide guidelines on who should or should not review articles, and there is no consensus to support a ban on reviews by relevant WikiProject members: indeed, sometimes it is helpful to have a content expert provide a review, as long as they are clearly independent. For a recent discussion see here. (Note, WT:GAN is a busy page, so it is highly likely that different views would have been registered if they were prevalent.)
 * Furthermore, how is membership of a WikiProject defined? If there is a list, then editors can add or remove their name from it at will. If it is defined by contributions, then no one who had ever worked on a biography would be able to review a biography. The biography example illustrates one final point: by proposing a new condition to be placed on arbitrary WikiProjects, this proposal goes beyond the scope of this arbitration request. Geometry guy 19:05, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

20.1) Nobody, whether as part of a wikiproject or not, should not review GANs of articles that they or a good friend worked on, as it may constitute a COI.


 * Comment by arbitrators:


 * Comment by participants:
 * Sounds good. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 23:45, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * ProposedBalloonman (talk) 23:11, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * This is a reasonable statement, but again, it is a matter for the good articles project to provide guidelines on who should or should not review GANs. And the guidelines are perfectly clear:
 * "you cannot review an article if you have made significant contributions to it prior to the review, nor can you review an article if you are the nominator".
 * "The Good article process is intended for the benefit of Wikipedia as a whole, and is built upon the good faith efforts and honor of reviewers. Forming reciprocal agreements to pass one another's articles is an abuse of trust and is expressly forbidden."
 * So again, I believe that this statement is beyond the scope of this arbitration request. Geometry guy 10:41, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

20.2) Members of WikiProject US Roads, like all other editors, should review GANs of articles in accordance with the GAN reviewing guidelines.


 * Comment by arbitrators:


 * Comment by participants:


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed. This is to illustrate the kind of statement which I believe is within the scope of this arbitration request, but I would be perfectly happy if no statement were made on this issue. Geometry guy 10:41, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Widespread changes
21) Before making widespread changes that would take considerable amounts of effort for other editors to undo, consensus should be sought first.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * This has recently happened again by yet another editor (about another issue). Since this is the crux of this issue, and was the crux of the Highways 1 case, I think we should really get word from ArbCom so it doesn't happen a fourth time. WP:BOLD is a great policy but shouldn't apply to big changes like mass page moves or eradicating supposed neologisms due to the amount of work involved. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 23:12, 6 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Huh? Where does it say in the Wikipedia policy that we need that?  and how does one know that this is the case? This draws concern because this could be concluded as Biting newcomers.  Also,  you might want to put evidence of this up as well. —  master son T - C 23:35, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * You can't deny that half the drama at USRD is caused by people taking the initiative to make widespread controversial changes. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 23:44, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd say it's not taking initiative that's the problem per se, it's doing so without any a) consensus to do so, or even much warning, and then on a huge, wide scale. Every article concerning US Highways in Michigan was mass hit today. Something this big, elimination an entire word from the project articles, without discussion to even decide if it might be a neologism or just something esoteric is too big not to bring to the appropriate project homepage. What's next, declaring that the acronym "SPUI" which stands for "single-point urban interchange" or the term "Michigan Left" are neologisms because they're relatively recent developments to highways? Both are used by various government agencies, but aren't exactly in common usage outside of the road planning community. --Imzadi1979 (talk) 00:00, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Template
N) {text of proposed principle}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Good editors
1) Everyone involved in this case does good article work.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Per Requests for arbitration/Highways 2/Evidence, which needs to be completed as of now. --NE2 04:08, 3 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * When dialed in, absolutely. I've seen excellent contributions from every party concerned. There's no debate that, when working together as a team, articles get much better! Edit Centric (talk) 10:48, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Add-on comment / example: When presented with the opportunity / suggestion to build the History section of article CA SR 41, NE2 accomplished the basic build within a day or so. I would have to say that this is an excellent indicator of the kind of contributions that he is capable of making! Edit Centric (talk) 10:41, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually there's a good deal left with the history north of Fresno. I've been spending some time doing the "behind-the-scenes" work at WikiProject California State Highways/History. --NE2 15:58, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Invalid arguments
2) The reasons given for excluding major highways without numbers from the scope of USRD were invalid.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Looks like a content finding to me. Sam Blacketer (talk) 11:26, 3 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * Here's the big one. The arguments were that it adds to the project's stub count and brings down its stats. Both are invalid. --NE2 04:16, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Content rulings are not handled by ArbCom. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 05:16, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * This isn't a content ruling. --NE2 06:01, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * "The Arbitration Committee is established to look at conduct rather than content issues," according to Arbitration policy/Case handling. In other words, ArbCom will not declare something to be valid or invalid, but rather to look into the behavior of the parties to this case. It would be best for an Arbitrator to state their position on this, but I can't see this being accepted as a finding of fact. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 07:03, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Additionally, I don't feel that Madison Avenue in Manhattan or Wacker Drive in Chicago is a major highway in comparison to an Interstate Highway. Madison Avenue and Wacker Drive both have notability to be in WikiProject U.S. Streets.  Let the streets project deal with streets, let the roads project deal with numbered local, state, US and Interstate highways.  --Son (talk) 14:16, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:
 * This does, on the face of it, appear to be more a question of content validity than anything else, however ArbCom will have to make the final call on this one. Edit Centric (talk) 10:45, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I disagree. ArbCom should not step in to make a decision on this.  It is content ruling, because ArbCom would be deciding what articles should or should not be a part of the project.  If ArbCom came out and decided to say "the project scope has to be this", fine.  I can handle that, no problem.  I just don't like the precedent that ArbCom could make content decisions.  --Son (talk) 14:16, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * What Arbcom could say is that discussions of scope should not be influenced by non-content factors (ie. stats on a leaderboard - I was quite shocked when I saw that). Some competitions can genuinely encourage good contributions, but if stubs are being excluded to manipulate stats, that is shocking and completely unacceptable. Carcharoth (talk) 16:02, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * This "leaderboard" is definitely a reason for the stubborness of members to accept the additional items into USRD scope. —  master son T - C 17:08, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * No Son, what I meant was that it appears to be a question of content validity, but that ArbCom would have to make the final call on its NATURE, not the question its self. (In short, we actually agree on this one as far as ArbCom not being able to address it, if it fits into that category :-) ) Edit Centric (talk) 20:27, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, I see what you're saying. It's true that ArbCom can make decisions on the nature of this.  --Son (talk) 22:17, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I've never seen so much hand-wringing over project scope. Do people actually edit articles, or just argue over whether or not to edit articles? For my part, when I create articles I add project tags based on relevance; I want as many people as possible to see the article and possibly help it out. Projects exist to serve the encyclopedia; I see signs that the principle has been stood on its head here. Mackensen (talk) 22:12, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

NE2 and consensus
3) NE2 has refused to listen to consensus during this and past debates.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Per evidence presented under "NE2 has refused to listen to consensus" and "NE2 has indicated that he does not abide by consensus". —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 07:52, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't abide by invalid consensus. --NE2 08:10, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Declaring someone's position invalid over minor points is what's unfortunate. Per evidence given by other users (of which I would provide, but would be redundant), NE2 doesn't seem to want to do anything to work with consensus, or have a reasonable discussion about it.  NE2 also seems to focus on the fact that there was a throwaway reference to hurting the project statistics, and is ignoring the fact that there is another project to handle streets in the United States (WikiProject U.S. Streets (WP:USST)).  --Son (talk) 14:26, 3 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * The (perceived) validity or invalidity of consensus seems to be at the crux of the entire issue here. If NE2 perceives that the consensus reached is, to his thinking, invalid, he then proceeds with a course of action that opposes the consensus. It may be possible that each party involved is too anchored to a certain point of view, or that the idea(s) are not being conveyed adequately. Perhaps more interaction during the discussion phase is the solution, perhaps WP:BRD, but definitely not revert warring or other potentially disruptive modes. Edit Centric (talk) 10:40, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The problem with this particular discussion is that it's a very fine point. It's what does or does not fall under the USRD scope.  It's hard to reach some kind of middle ground here.  NE2 is very consistent in saying that streets should fall under both USRD and USST.  I have argued that this hurts U.S. Streets and U.S. Roads because US Road editors have been more concerned with propping up streets for deletion without much other knowledge aside - showing a very valid reason for creating a Streets project - and attempt to create guidelines that fall under USRD for streets, when it should be left for USST to create guidelines for streets.   As I have argued, having streets fall under USRD and USST creates a gray area that slows down both projects by each having to worry about what each others standards are.  If consensus at US Streets is to follow a US Cities model, would this not conflict with US Roads standards?  --Son (talk) 14:26, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Now here we have a problem, in fact exactly the one that ultimately triggered this: "I don't abide by invalid consensus". The only thing that would clearly invalidate a consensus is if it explicitly contravened standing policy. You cannot just disregard consensus by calling it invalid, at least not without stating why (too few users involved? not consistent with policy?). Until you get consensus changed, you live with it. I agree with NE2, for instance, that we should include river crossings in junction lists. But consensus hasn't yet come around to that, so we don't do it. Consensus is what we have where policy hasn't or can't go. We need to live with it even when we think it's utterly wrongheaded. Daniel Case (talk) 19:12, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * If you genuinely believe consensus is wrong, then you go to article RFC or something like that and get it changed. The beauty of Wikipedia is that there are checks and balances so incorrect consensuses can be corrected with the help of logic. --Rschen7754 (T C) 19:21, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Then the correct course of action is not to defy consensus and edit war or to invalidate many edits based upon personal principle, but to work out through discussions or another part of the dispute resolution process, such as RFC, to gain additional input. In the event that it falls out of favor with NE2 in dispute resolution, it should be noted as such. But to persistently go against the grain of many other established editors and failure to abide by consensus without escalating the dispute resolution process will only bring further troubles towards NE2 and other editors involved. This reeks of SPUI in so many ways.  Seicer  (talk) (contribs) 17:15, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

NE2 insists he is right
4) NE2 insists he is right, whether or not he is, and regardless of what consensus says.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Per above. --Rschen7754 (T C) 17:33, 3 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Although i do not speak of whether this is general. This can be specifically can be seen on the evidence given by NE2. The evidence that this statement from NE2 is flawed can be seen here. Seddon69 (talk) 18:50, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

NE2 insists he is right
4.1) In this case and in many other instances, NE2 has insisted that he is right, whether or not he is, and regardless of what consensus says.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Per above. --Rschen7754 (T C) 19:10, 3 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * And God love him, he sticks to his guns even if it goes against consensus. Then again, tenacity can be a positive thing, I suggest that we try to build on that... Edit Centric (talk) 23:35, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * While I appreciate his boldness in editing, it can come at the inconvenience at others down the road. In this instance, having to undo or correct his edits, or to begin dialogues. NE2 has shown to have a strong resolve to edit consistently, and that's great and all, but it can become overzealous at times and NE2 needs to be brought back down to reality.  Seicer  (talk) (contribs) 01:18, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

In regards to the scope issue, consensus was formed at WT:USRD
5) In regards to the scope issue, consensus was formed at WT:USRD.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Obviously. --Rschen7754 (T C) 17:49, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * That is without a doubt. --Son (talk) 00:11, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Consensus wasn't really formed; it was more people shouting past each other, and no actual scope was decided. --NE2 00:13, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * You kidding? It was 6-1. --Rschen7754 (T C) 03:55, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * As this is where it should be formed. Absolutely. Edit Centric (talk) 20:31, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Does consensus need to be Unanimous? it appears that based on the statements in the "Parties" section, it has to be. if not, then there must be a minimum number of editors required for consensus. —  master son T - C 22:03, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd say it doesn't. If an AfD closed with six deletes and one keep, the article would probably be deleted. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 00:13, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Only if the deletes have valid reasoning behind them. --NE2 00:48, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Depends on the closing admin. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 01:00, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Consensus was formed per discussion, six to one, which is a pretty strong statement towards the favoring of changes proposed by Rschen7754. Although consensus does not equal the greatest number of votes and only discussion, it was pretty clear from the evidence provided that NE2's ideology was quite weak and unsubstantiated. If NE2 opposed it to an even greater deal, he would have taken it to another form of dispute resolution, but instead of doing that, he edited in bad faith and has caused a lot of editors grief. Time has been wasted; instead of editing road-related articles, we are stuck with what... the forth request for arbitration / comment?   Seicer  (talk) (contribs) 17:18, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Suggestion: To complement this, propose a principle that says everyone agreeing to the outcome is not a necessary condition for consensus; in other words, you don't need universal acceptance of a view having consensus for it to actually have consensus. I hesitate to propose this myself because there is such a deep difference of views in the involved parties that it's probably not helpful at all. You disagree in the argument, you disagree about the validity of the arguments, you disagree about consensus on that validity, you disagree about consensus on that consensus, etc. I can't suggest either that you focus only on one level of discussion, because at some point you have to take a step back and look at the big picture about whether you can agree on some compromise, even if you can't agree on the contents of that compromise. I think the answer here is inevitably no, and that's unfortunate. –Pomte 09:42, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Locus of dispute
6) The locus of dispute relates to user conduct, not content issues.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Which is why it is here. --Rschen7754 (T C) 17:51, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * It would not be here if the only problem was user conduct. --NE2 22:05, 3 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * I believe the locus of dispute relates to user conduct, arising from content issues. That would be a more accurate assessment of the situation. Edit Centric (talk) 20:33, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Locus of dispute
6.1) As the community has already spoken in regards to the content issues, the locus of dispute relates to user conduct, not content issues.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed. --Rschen7754 (T C) 22:49, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * If there were only conduct issues, the case would not have been accepted. --NE2 22:59, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * If there were only content issues, the case would not have been accepted. --Rschen7754 (T C) 00:11, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Content issues are not dealt with at ArbCom, whats dealt with is the behavior of the users creating, implementing and discussing the content of the articles and the projects involved. Seddon69 (talk) 19:52, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The locus of dispute is supposed to be user conduct, but look at the content dispute spilling onto this very page (which, of course, tells us about user conduct). If the community has already spoken in regards to the content issues, why is it still debating about them? –Pomte 15:33, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Leaderboard competition
7) The leaderboard competition has resulted in the improvement of many articles relating to U.S. roads.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed. --Rschen7754 (T C) 18:42, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Needs evidence. --NE2 22:05, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I posted evidence at the evidence page. --Rschen7754 (T C) 22:26, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Evidence that you would have let the articles rot otherwise? --NE2 23:01, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I would have done other stuff like the USH bannered merges, or assessment for UKRD, or other stuff like that. Check my contribs for the last year or so (since SRNC) - I haven't done anything like this since before the leaderboard thing started. --Rschen7754 (T C) 23:04, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The statistics have motivated me to improve around 20 Oklahoma articles (as well as a MO and KS article) to B-Class. Prior to these statistics I was content with Oklahoma only having 2 B-class articles (not knowing that NY had over a hundred).—Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 02:03, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmmm. So the issue is with the better-quality articles? I can totally understand that; how about leaving off stubs and somehow averaging it (maybe by population)? Then we can keep our Ridge Routes but ignore our Auburn Boulevards. --NE2 02:07, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * (in rs) That is a straw man. --Rschen7754 (T C) 02:55, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * What's a strawman? My proposal is to use a different formula that doesn't "penalize" stubs/starts. --NE2 03:01, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * I agree with this statement, as it can correlate to contesting within Amateur radio. Contesting can be a form of motivation, a means to develop certain skills, and here, has definitely resulted in some good being accomplished. Edit Centric (talk) 20:36, 3 January 2008 (UTC)


 * This is in response to the above discussion. There is no problem with the formula for wikiwork and the idea that start/stub articles are penalized is in essence how this works and should not be gotten rid of. The idea is that those start and stub class articles should be improved to lowerthe projects wikwork, if you didnt include those stubs then your completely forgetting about them and then nothing will ever get done to them. This is a useful tool and merely needs to used in the correct way by the users. Seddon69 (talk) 03:23, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I concur. --Rschen7754 (T C) 03:55, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I've been silent in regards to this whole arbitration case, even though previous to a week ago I was almost content to walk away from all of WikiPedia completely. After seeing a recent leaderboard and seeing that some articles I edited were reassessed backwards to start-class by others, I have found a new motivation to look into the wikiwork formula. Now the Michigan project has 4 more B-Class articles, two GA nominations and a slew of housekeep reorganizing edits to begin to clean through some of the backlog. I think earlier tonight an update on the wikiwork stats for the state project show Michigan has jumped in place from the 20s up to #12. I will definitely say that I have found new motivation to not only get back to work, but to do better and more work as well. Imzadi1979 (talk) 06:13, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

NE2's manner
8) NE2's manner has offended other users, brushing them away from disputes or from editing Wikipedia.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Referring to Holderca1 and to Edit Centric at WT:CASH. --Rschen7754 (T C) 21:07, 3 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * I believe the incident that Rschen is referring to is actually here. No worries about this thing driving me away from the project, I'm over it. Edit Centric (talk) 23:28, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Even potentially driving a contributor away is bad enough. 哦，是吗？ (O-person) 23:31, 03 January 2008 (GMT)

NE2 rejected mediation
9) NE2 rejected mediation about this issue.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed. --Rschen7754 (T C) 00:16, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * False. I rejected mediation on a smaller issue that would not have gone to arbitration had there not been a larger issue. --NE2 00:17, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * While I disagree with you, I've proposed the following. --Rschen7754 (T C) 00:22, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

NE2 rejected mediation
9.1) NE2 rejected mediation.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed. --Rschen7754 (T C) 00:22, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * It makes sense to me. Keilana talk(recall) 20:07, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Ditto, given his lack of serious replies in this arbitration request. I'm pretty much certain that NE2 won't abide by the findings of this either, given that he hasn't for the prior requests and notices. And we'll be back here in a few months.  Seicer  (talk) (contribs) 01:20, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, there is Arbitration enforcement, if that's the road that this follows. Keilana talk(recall) 01:23, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

If it's not about this issue, then how is it relevant? Mackensen (talk) 22:14, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Specifically, it is about NE2's manner. NE2 refusing mediation is part of his manner, regardless of whether it is an issue or not. --Rschen7754 (T C) 22:45, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * (Speaking from a personal perspective) Users are free to decline to participate in a mediation attempt. The issue arises when this is done maliciously to benefit their argument by preventing meaningful resolution attempts (this happens most commonly when one user is "winning" the revert war due to weight of numbers/relative aggression). However, unless you could show how NE2 maliciously and in bad faith rejected the mediation to benefit himself and his opinions to the detriment of the project, I would personally find this a little irrelevant. Daniel (talk) 13:17, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

NE2 has left no room for objection
10) In this matter, NE2 has assumed that he was right and has gone ahead and implemented his own stance on the scope issue, leaving no room for the objections of others.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed. --Rschen7754 (T C) 00:23, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * If anything it's the other side that leaves no room for objection, supporting each other in the "consensus discussions" when there's been no real onwiki discussion. --NE2 01:27, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * You're the one who's been objecting throughout the process. If you're objecting, then we're giving you room for objection. --Rschen7754 (T C) 01:32, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * By that argument, you're objecting to my views, so I'm giving you room for objection. --NE2 01:34, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * So you're objecting to my view that you're giving me no room for objection, while I am objecting to your view that you are not getting room for objection? --Rschen7754 (T C) 01:40, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Exactly. --NE2 01:46, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * One example can be seen at Talk:U.S. Route 50; note Rschen7754's comment "A consensus already was reached. Some users don't believe in consensus, however." when that was shown to be false just below. That was following a revert war where new editor Mm555 got in an edit war with them and they reacted very badly. --NE2 01:34, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * This doesn't even relate. This issue had already been determined with WP:USRD/INNA/I. --Rschen7754 (T C) 01:40, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * It relates perfectly; it's an example of several editors using false consensus against another. --NE2 01:46, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * How is this false? --Rschen7754 (T C) 01:47, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Because US 395 has been in the junction list ever since then. --NE2 01:48, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * How does this support your assertion that this was a false consensus? --Rschen7754 (T C) 01:53, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Because, of the three people that agreed on US 95, two also agreed to US 395 and the other made no statement about US 395. --NE2 01:56, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * This is irrelevant. The consensus I referred to was WP:USRD/INNA/I which meant don't put every single junction in the infobox. The consensus that was formed was about which route should go into the infobox as the xth junction. --Rschen7754 (T C) 02:00, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * What? Mm555 was replacing US 95 with US 395. --NE2 02:02, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * (in rs) Fine... so I didn't understand the dispute and I chimed in with WP:USRD/INNA/I... I made a mistake. Don't we all? --Rschen7754 (T C) 02:57, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, we definitely do. But it's a good example of how a "consensus" can form on a shaky foundation. --NE2 03:02, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * This doesn't even support your argument at all. So what, some consensuses are bad? Then get them changed. Don't just ignore them. (Not to mention that you still haven't proved how our consensus was "bad")... --Rschen7754 (T C) 03:07, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * It can be impossible to change a consensus if the people that helped form it are unwilling to consider a change. --NE2 03:10, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * In terms of the scope dispute, we had considered it just then. What, we would have changed our minds 5 minutes later? --Rschen7754 (T C) 03:56, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Yes. It's not just that he thinks all arguments brought up against him are invalid; he sometimes decides that such things will be invalid before they have even been presented. -Amarkov moo! 01:12, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Evidence? --NE2 01:17, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ANE2&diff=166141658&oldid=166141509 It is perhaps more accurate to say that you just refuse to consider any position other than your own as valid, but that hardly puts you in a better light. -Amarkov moo! 06:07, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * That's just one issue, and I still stand by my view. Local consensus cannot and should not override Avoid neologisms. --NE2 06:22, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Local consensus is that it isn't a neologism. You're hinging your arguments on saying that local consensus can't override policy. And that's perfectly fine, when the consensus is something like "we don't have reliable sources, true, but we really want to put this in anyway". But if there is consensus that the policy is fulfilled, you can't override that with your belief that the policy is being violated. -Amarkov moo! 07:14, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * That's exactly what this case is: we don't have reliable sources that define the term, but "we" want to use it anyway. --NE2 09:07, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Firstly that has been dealt with, secondly thats content and has no place on here, and is precisely what this case isnt about. Seddon69 (talk) 16:22, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

(margin reset) Regarding Amarkov's assessment that NE2 "sometimes decides that such things will be invalid before they have ever been presented", this would assume a degree of prescience, and logically cannot be the case. I believe it would be more accurate to say that it appears that NE2 may have some preconceptions regarding certain content, and its validity in regards to the project as a whole. (Then again, don't we all?) Edit Centric (talk) 18:22, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

If I understand the matter aright, the issue is that a WikiProject took a vaguely pre-existing term and used it to describe content in a different manner. NE2 objected on the grounds that these roads were not decommissioned highways as the term is generally understood. A WikiProject can't trump the encyclopedia. Mackensen (talk) 22:19, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


 * It's actually more complicated. Decommissioned is commonly used in that context in the "roadgeek" community, from which most road editors come; one very comprehensive (but not reliable for our purposes) roadgeek website is the first Google hit for define:decommission. The problem is that, except for a bit of spillover into reliable sources that end up using the term (it actually seems to have originated from the Route 66 community, and spread to roadgeeks from there), it is not generally used that way, and no reliable sources define it that way. In other words, it's very unlikely that someone who had never seen the word used that way would write something that does so (and I was just as guilty of this as anyone else). Whether someone would clearly understand it is a different issue; I was only alerted to the problem by a non-road editor on Talk:Decommissioned highway. But there is enough confusion, and usage of "decommissioned highway" to mean a highway that's no longer able to be driven on, that it cannot be used. --NE2 00:12, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

USRD has acted in an overly insular manner
10) Core members of USRD have often acted in an overly insular manner from the rest of the Wikipedia community, and have been prone to interpreting the agreement of a select few as "consensus" without considering the consensus of the community at large.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed.  krimpet ✽  18:34, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Even if NE2 is right, and they are acting contrary to consensus on policy, they do so because they believe the policy doesn't apply. Not because they consider outside consensus irrelevant. -Amarkov moo! 21:25, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thoughts on this one, outside consensus (outside the Wikiproject, NOT IRC!) is definitely relevant, as is standing policy. As a USRD / CASH editor, if something I wish to do goes against policy or consensus, I just don't do it. Policies can be changed, yes, and the proper procedure would be to lobby for that change, whatever it may be. As far as the "overly insular" actions of core USRD editors, I just joined the project a few months back, and I have to say that I feel completely welcome as a part of it! It possibly has something to do with the manner in which one presents things to the group. Instead of "I want to do this", I tend to use the "Hey guys, what do you think about doing this instead of that" approach. It seems to work better, not only in-wiki, but IRL as well. Edit Centric (talk) 10:41, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed with Edit Centric; consensus outside of the Wikiproject is not needed. If the discussion was being held on one specific article and a consensus was reached there, then one could make the statement that consensus was needed outside of the article space -- at the main project page. But that's not the case. There was a spirited discussion and tabulation of consensus, and that was what was acted on appropriately.   Seicer  (talk) (contribs) 01:22, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Evidence that USRD ignores the community? What is USRD supposed to do, seek community input every time they decide on something specific to road articles? –Pomte 09:09, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I would have to agree that if imput from outside is given, that it should be taken into account, but that the project shouldn't have to seek that imput. The idea of a project is for a group of people to be able to help create a standard across groups of article, and t concentrate the efforts of that group of editors. It should be expected that most of the input on these road articles is come from the editors in that project. Seddon69 (talk) 22:58, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I concur with the above statement by Seddon69, insomuch as input from the overall Wiki community should not have to be pursued, UNLESS there is a change that involves the applicability of overall Wiki policy or previous consensus at that level. Edit Centric (talk) 23:48, 6 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm going to have to agree with this; WP:ELG was snuck in through the back door from an agreement between two editors. Will (talk) 19:55, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
 * What? I've never seen that...can you provide a diff please? Thanks. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 23:19, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I note that WP:ELG has been edited by no less than 21 different users, three of which were anonymous, and eight of which aren't regular USRD contributors. Not to mention the discussions that have taken place on the talk page. The assertion that the guideline was created by only two users is demonstrably false. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 23:33, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
 * No; the assertion is that it became a MoS guideline "from an agreement between two editors", which is true: User talk:Matt Yeager; User talk:Northenglish/Archive 5. I'm not commenting here about its legitimacy as a guideline, but Will is correct. --NE2 09:45, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Problem is, Matt Yeager was never part of USRD. Northenglish soon left after this and is not a party to this case. --Rschen7754 (T C) 22:59, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

IRC is open
11) #wikipedia-en-roads is open to all editors who do not use the IRC channel for disruption.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed. Excluding Shel2476 and SPUI, who caused disruption on the channel. --Rschen7754 (T C) 21:23, 13 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Agree 100%. Edit Centric (talk) 21:38, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

IRC is not a "walled garden"
12) Because any user can join, users have been repeatedly invited to IRC, and because efforts have been made to make sure that IRC is not a walled garden, IRC is not a "walled garden."


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * I mean, how can it be a "walled garden" if people can get in? --Rschen7754 (T C) 21:36, 13 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Again, agree 100%. Completely accessible, and there are a number of IRC clients out there to facilitate this. Edit Centric (talk) 21:40, 13 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Agreed, I was invited to the IRC channel when i was had no little association with the project and only one of its members. The address for the channel is displayed on US roads and highways and i personally have placed messages at the UK road wikiproject and the canada roads wiki project asking for more participants and so these types of arguments shouldn't occur against the IRC channel. Seddon69 (talk) 01:16, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * And that's from a UK user. :) --Rschen7754 (T C) 01:18, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

NE2 has been needlessly provocative
13) NE2 has been needlessly provocative and thus offended some users, and scaring them away from Wikipedia.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed. --Rschen7754 (T C) 02:45, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Honestly, your proposed remedy for topic probation would probably have the effect of "scaring me away from Wikipedia". --NE2 09:49, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I edited under a similar probation for around 6 months... --Rschen7754 (T C) 23:00, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

USRD has not gone against consensus
14) USRD has not gone against the general consensus of Wikipedia.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * I feel we need to set the record straight. --Rschen7754 (T C) 05:28, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * It depends... if it hadn't been for me and other stubborn opposition, USRD would be going against Avoid neologisms for the terms "multiplex" and "decommissioned". --NE2 09:34, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * There's a difference here - we did not agree that it was a neologism. --Rschen7754 (T C) 23:27, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Does it really make sense to talk about whether a Wikiproject goes against consensus? If the members of USRD are acting with a hivemind, that's a problem whether or not the hivemind aligns with general consensus. -Amarkov moo! 05:38, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Well Balloonman was saying that we were above... In addition to this, what is the problem with a few USRD members sharing similar views? --Rschen7754 (T C) 06:39, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Nowhere have I said that USRD was going against consensus. My comments have been A) a response to some who implied that guidelines/policies can be ignored if there is "consensus" (section 7 above) and B) a response to the notion that wikiprojects have real "power" and have rights to impose standards (section 16.)  My comments are more generic related to wikiprojects as a whole, not specifically to USRD, but I would be lying if I said I wasn't concerned about USRD having this mentality.Balloonman (talk) 07:28, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * You have implied several times that USRD has been going against consensus. If USRD has not gone against the general consensus of Wikipedia, then how is this relevant to this arbitration? --Rschen7754 (T C) 07:31, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * No I see an attitude in the editors that is worrisome. I haven't looked into USRD enough to know if USRD justifies over riding guidelines/policies with project consensus.  But I've definately seen enough here and in my previous encounters to make me more than a little concerned.  You have on several ocassions talked about the Power and Rights of Wikiprojects.  Another USRD participant wrote in Scotts RfA, I take issue with the policy as it stands. I honestly don't care whether it comes from Jimbo Wales himself; there are obvious times when discussion should, or should not, occur. So I take issue with the policy's statement.  Scott wrote, "setting and enforcing standards on the articles under their care is certainly within [wikiprojects] bounds."  I know there is history behind the following response, but the response to a proposal to adhere to a guideline was "Oppose: Let's let the community decide this."  Another member, said in another place that even if USRD is "acting contrary to consensus on policy, they do so because they believe the policy doesn't apply."  A person who may or may not be a USRD'er wrote, "if consensus and policy conflict, consensus should be followed."  Another "Policy should be changed to meet consensus, not the other way around."
 * Then there was the justification for accepting this case---concern about the project. The arbcom panel's reasons for accepting the case included, "but also on perceived problems with USRD's interaction with the rest of the encyclopedia" and "indicate that a problem exists beyond one user" and "more complicated than just one user." Several other people have brought up issues such as walled garden, consensus, a person commenting on my talk page that "USRD thinks its own consensus rises above WP-wide guidelines", etc.  While I haven't dug into the USRD, there is certainly a lot of smoke.  And that's just been my limited exposure to USRD... what would I see if I looked deeper?  Do you really want me to?
 * One of the key issues that I see between NE2 and USRD is NE2's belief that USRD ignores policies/guidelines when reaching consensus... thus, the issue does have merit in this arbcom setting. But again, and let me be perfectly clear, I am not accusing USRD of anything, I am pointing out a trend I've seen amongst some of its members.Balloonman (talk) 06:57, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The reason that we get so worked up about enforcing standards is because there are a few new editors who decide to ignore them. There are editors who add more than 10 infobox junctions to an infobox, despite the HTML comment that explicitly says not to add any more. Another insists on making state detail articles for every single segment of an Interstate - which is entirely unnecessary. Your stance that a WikiProject should have the same weight as an essay seriously worries me as then these standards fall apart. I believe that there is a misunderstanding between USRD and the rest of the community - USRD is not the walled garden that it seems, and frequently USRD is concerned that there is a bias against it from the community, which there is little evidence for. --Rschen7754 (T C) 07:04, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps it does get a bad rap... but in all honesty, I wouldn't have joined this conversation if I didn't see echoes that people here believe Wikiproject consensus carries the weight of Policies/Guidelines. Wikiprojects are, IMHO, simply a place for people to work towards a consistant treatment of similar articles... the standards derived by projects (unless accepted as such by the larger community) are not guidelines/policies.  Possibly more than a typical essay, but definitely not the same weight as a guideline.Balloonman (talk) 07:14, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * So they don't. But that doesn't mean that they should be totally ignored. We say that WikiProject standards should be enforced. Nowhere in that statement do we imply that they supersede Wikipedia guidelines. --Rschen7754 (T C) 07:32, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * (in rs) This is more of a Wikipedia-wide issue than a USRD issue, as other WikiProjects have their own proprietary standards. To my knowledge, no USRD standards supersede or claim to supersede Wikipedia-wide standards. --Rschen7754 (T C) 07:20, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Again, had I not been so stubborn, "decommissioned" with WP:NEO would be a case of that. --NE2 07:26, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * ... but it's not a neologism. --Rschen7754 (T C) 07:32, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * That's an outright lie, and I wish you'd stop repeating it. --NE2 07:55, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * It's not. But seeing as we're not going to agree, I don't see the point in pursuing this topic any further. Frankly, I'm sick of this case and just want Arbcom to vote and then close it down. --Rschen7754 (T C) 01:48, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Honestly, I've never seen this "bad rap". When this case was proposed, there weren't any "not again"-style comments from non-parties, as there always seem to be in areas such as Armenia-Azerbaijan. We very rarely have edit wars, and generally work to substantially improve road articles. I never have problems with DYK, and the GA reviewers may be slow, but I haven't seen any hostility towards road articles on their part. --NE2 07:24, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it's died away in recent months. I remember when WSS made an SFD titled "into the breach, my friends..." trying to sneak an SFD by before we could object... but we've since conformed to their style. --Rschen7754 (T C) 07:32, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Decommissioning of the article about "decommissioned highway"
15) Decommissioned highway was protected in November 2007 after an edit war, and remains protected due to lack of interest in unprotecting it.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Let's go here. Change the title if you feel it's improperly witty. --NE2 09:41, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * If you don't want the page to be protected, make a request to unprotect it. --Son (talk) 14:32, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not concerned about it - it's sort of a testament both to the fact that we can't agree on what to do with it and that our worst problem is something minor like that. It would also probably restart the edit war. --NE2 14:34, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * But the proposed states that there is a lack of interest in unprotecting it. --Son (talk) 00:29, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

"Decommissioned highway" is a neologism
16) There is strong evidence that the meaning of "decommissioned" used by road enthusiasts is a neologism without sufficient reliable sources for its use.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Can somebody who is familiar with relevant precedents please let me know if this is a content decision or not? If it's something that may have a chance of passing, I'll compile evidence. --NE2 09:41, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * This is a content decision. --Rschen7754 (T C) 23:26, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Probably not actionable by ArbCom. As noted before, they prefer to work with issues of user conduct and let the community handle things of this nature. I really don't see what the point of dragging this out again is, anyway; I thought this issue was settled. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 23:38, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * *sigh* Didn't we go through this earlier? Let's let the community decide this -- as we have with all of our prior "neologisms."  Seicer  (talk) (contribs) 23:52, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok this is really out of place here, a) its content b) consensus was agreed on what to do with it here c) This is you agreeing to it here. I don't think i need to say much more. Seddon69 (talk) 23:59, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Supposedly this is a counterexample to the "USRD has not gone against consensus." However, this is extremely weak, as USRD did not go against Wikipedia consensus - because there was none. --Rschen7754 (T C) 04:52, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * There's consensus for WP:NEO, and you guys wished to ignore it: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Highways/Archive 1. In particular, Son said "I think this is a circumstance where we can use common sense and Ignore WP:NEO in this case", and several others, if not agreeing, replied without disagreeing. --NE2 06:16, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Maybe because we did not agree that it was a neologism in the first place? The thing is, there is a difference here: maybe one or two of the editors of USRD wanted to go against WP:NEO, but they do not make the project. Furthermore, we never actually went and "acted against the consensus of WP:NEO" - since what eventually was decided was "in compliance" with WP:NEO - quotes used to signify that the "fact" that decommissioned is a neologism is still questionable. --Rschen7754 (T C) 06:26, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * If this is within the ArbCom's scope, I'll provide enough evidence so they can rule that it is one. That won't be a problem. --NE2 07:02, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I simply was saying that there is WP:IAR and WP:SENSE. I was making the argument that there wasn't a better term to be used; I was stating that this would be a case where WP:IAR and WP:SENSE can apply.  I take personal offense at your charge that my position is somehow the position of consensus.  You'll take note that it's NOT consensus.  You'll also take note that I agreed that it was a neologism; I just said to apply WP:IAR in this case!  It's not like I thereafter went reverting any changes that removed the term decommissioned.  Additionally, there is nothing wrong with me putting my $0.02 out there.  --23:55, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I think this needs to be left at this point. No1 gains anything from any of this. Seddon69 (talk) 00:06, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose this per Seicer and Seddon - this is definitely context and was resolved - why wake it up? —  master son T - C 00:02, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Spite? I have no idea.  Seicer  (talk) (contribs) 00:49, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Widespread neologisms
17) Even if a neologism is in wide use, we need reliable sources that clearly define it to be able to use it within articles.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * From Avoid neologisms. --NE2 09:45, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * This is a content issue, not conduct issue. --Son (talk) 14:40, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I've seen decisions that said "this article does not meet BLP" and (I think) "this editor does not follow NPOV". --NE2 15:42, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Oppose: Let's let the community decide this.  Seicer  (talk) (contribs) 23:53, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Although i kinda agree with the idea behind it, this is still content not conduct, doesn't belong here. Seddon69 (talk) 00:25, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

NE2 violated the temporary injunction
18) During the course of this case, NE2 violated the temporary injunction.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed. --Rschen7754 (T C) 00:45, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I simply reverted removals. --NE2 01:01, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * The removals were because the articles were not part of the project —  master son T - C 01:51, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

NE2 has edit warred
19) NE2 has engaged in edit warring on a variety of pages.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Per evidence presented by several users. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 07:22, 24 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * NE2 was right at both U.S. Route 50 in California and User:Rschen7754. He probably should have discussed the changes, but they are so uncontroversial with regards to guidelines and common sense that it's nitpicking here. The only contentious edit warring is at User:Rschen7754/Problems with Wikipedia, and in that case Rschen7754 should probably have diverted discussion to the talk page (I don't see evidence of this) rather than outright reject opposing opinions. –Pomte 04:19, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Except that took place in Rschen's userspace, and he basically has the latitude to be the final arbiter of what goes in his user space (as long as it complies with WP:USER, of course). While it may be a good idea to discuss his opinion piece on its talk page, he is certainly under no obligation to do so. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 04:56, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I also note that being right does not justify edit warring - obviously, someone didn't agree that NE2 was right, or the war wouldn't have taken place. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 04:57, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The IP's edits to Rschen7754 were, if not vandalism, very very close. I had fixed a link and he was reverting for no apparent reason to a broken link. As for US 50, AL2TB made no attempt to refute the fact that I was following the guideline; it wasn't vandalism but it was the kind of edit that should not be done without a reason. --NE2 12:44, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I was definitely wrong about Problems with Wikipedia, and I apologized to Rschen7754 after I realized that. --NE2 12:44, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

There is usually no "right"
20) In the majority of situations on Wikipedia, there is no "right" or "correct" course of action. Editors on both sides of a dispute typically have their own opinions, which they are entitled to. What is considered the "right" result is often subjective and differs from user to user. Consensus-building discussions should strive to accommodate the opinions of all involved.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed. This may be the crux of the issue that other editors have with NE2; he seems to write off others' opinions as being "wrong" without consideration. This is not conducive to consensus-building. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 16:14, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Template
N) {text of proposed finding of fact}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Proposed 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.

Civility
1) JohnnyAlbert10 and NE2 are warned to remain civil at all times. All participants in this dispute are encouraged to maintain a courteous atmosphere.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed. --Rschen7754 (T C) 22:08, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree. Civility should always be maintained.  --Son (talk) 23:56, 3 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Civility be exercised at all times.  Seicer  (talk) (contribs) 01:23, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

NE2 on topic probation
2) NE2 is to be placed on topic probation, on any articles relating to highways.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed. --Rschen7754 (T C) 22:15, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Support, because there's ample evidence that being "admonished" (as in #4) wouldn't do a thing to deter him: if RfCs and mediation requests don't faze him, why would the Arbitration Committee merely wagging a finger at him be any different?—Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 21:41, 6 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Are you sure this will act as a method to prevent disruption as opposed to a punitive method?  Spebi  22:28, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * No.... if you have a better idea, go for it. --Rschen7754 (T C) 22:34, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I've proposed 4) below.  Spebi  00:13, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I thought that you meant that this was not punitive enough. --Rschen7754 (T C) 00:28, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I asked if you were sure that this was not meant to act as punishment or if it was meant to prevent "disruption" from NE2. I felt it was a punishment rather than something put in place to prevent disruption, so I have proposed 4).  Spebi  00:32, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * This is not meant as a punitive measure. This will ensure that NE2 does not disrupt. A punitive measure would be a block. Unless you are objecting over the use of the p word? --Rschen7754 (T C) 01:20, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Reasonable, and allows NE2 to continue his good article work by Finding of fact 1. This is preventative, whereas a topic ban would be clearly punitive. –Pomte 15:47, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Consensus must have valid reasoning
3) All editors are reminded that to come to a consensus, they must be able to explain the reasoning behind the position and how it helps the encyclopedia.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * To prevent discussions from going nowhere, such as Wikipedia talk:WikiProject California State Highways. --NE2 22:38, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * There is no need for this remedy, as it's already covered by Wikipedia policy. First, discussions that go nowhere means that there is no consensus, of which the default is what existed prior to the start or edit that caused the discussion.  Secondly, Consensus is reason enough not to  employ this remedy, as the basis of this remedy is a lack of assuming good faith.  All editors should be assuming good faith.  Lastly, see WP:PRACTICAL, which explains consensus in practice.  --Son (talk) 23:54, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * So saying that "the county designations are needed" is an invalid argument for keeping the county designations is a lack of assuming good faith? --NE2 00:03, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, absolutely. By saying it's an invalid argument directly is not assuming good faith.  You can make an argument against it by giving an alternative position.  That would be in the construct of assuming good faith.  Simply saying "that's an invalid argument" is, in my opinion, challenging the other person's intelligence.  --Son (talk) 00:29, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * But there's no reasoning behind it; it is an argument by assertion, a logical fallacy. --NE2 00:32, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * But this is a red herring as reasoning has been given at the section stated above. --Rschen7754 (T C) 00:33, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * There's no reasoning from "it's on the signs" to "we must use it". --NE2 00:35, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * [Indent reset] What about the other points brought up in the discussion from November? --Son (talk) 15:10, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:
 * How about taking the stance of "We would like to use it because...". The basic premise behind anything that we do here is; "Does it benefit the end-user (reader searching for the knowledge)?" Is it clear, concise, and pertinent? These are just the basics, for your perusal and rhumination. Edit Centric (talk) 17:46, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

NE2 strongly admonished
4) is strongly admonished to take more care when editing articles relating to U.S. highways with other editors.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed. 2 seemed a bit harsh and appeared to be a punitive method as opposed to a preventative method.  Spebi  00:12, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * This will do absolutely nothing. Many have brought this up with NE2. NE2 has ignored them. ArbCom ruling this way will make no difference in his conduct. --Rschen7754 (T C) 00:21, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * This will do absolutely nothing. This approach has been taken numerous times, NE2 cares nothing about admonishment. He's tenacious, head-strong, and very grounded in his opinions and point-of-view. What will mere admonishment accomplish? No, this is not the answer. Edit Centric (talk) 17:50, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * While Proposal 2 sounds a bit more harsh in terms of limiting NE2's contributions, given that it is one of his major highlights, this proposal would do little to nothing. NE2 will continue his old methods under this, editors will become upset, and we'll be back here again.  Seicer  (talk) (contribs) 01:25, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Consensus on-wiki
5) Editors are reminded that consensus must take place on Wikipedia.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed. --Rschen7754 (T C) 00:40, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Most definitely; no question. 哦，是吗？ (O-person) 00:42, 04 January 2008 (GMT)


 * Comment by others:
 * Absolutely. It has, and will continue to take place here. Consensus debates and discussions can only have the input of everyone concerned if they occur on talk pages here. Edit Centric (talk) 17:53, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Project debates on wiki continued
5.1) For issues relating to the whole of WP:USRD, the discussion should take place at WT:USRD or subpage. Notification of all state highway subprojects is not required since it is impractical.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed. We've had complaints regarding this in the past. --Rschen7754 (T C) 00:42, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * If this is passed, it should be a more general statement that applies to any subprojects: WP:HWY overrules WP:USRD, WP:VPP overrules any project, etc. --NE2 00:44, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Then that should be rewritten. --Rschen7754 (T C) 00:48, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Agree that this should be rewritten. If we are to assume a heirarchy of projects, then decisions that affect the subprojects should have notification in these subs' talk space. Edit Centric (talk) 18:07, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Subprojects know that any discussion at the parent should apply to them. If they would like some hint on their respective talk pages, a small template in the manner of cent can be put on all subprojects' talk pages. –Pomte 09:17, 6 January 2008 (UTC) ... Project U.S. Roads, in particular. –Pomte 13:03, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Clearly defined scope
7) Project members shall discuss and come to a consensus on a clearly defined scope before implementing it.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Makes sense. --NE2 01:08, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * This has already taken place. --Rschen7754 (T C) 01:10, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Where's the clearly defined scope? --NE2 01:16, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * It was part of the stuff Scott put on WP:USRD. --Rschen7754 (T C) 01:34, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * You mean "City streets fall under WP:USST and not USRD."? That's not clearly defined, since it's not always clear if something's a city street. It also creates a false dichotomy; see Requests for arbitration/Highways 2/Evidence. --NE2 01:36, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * We didn't say anything about it not being in USST; we only said we didn't think it belonged in USRD. --Rschen7754 (T C) 02:07, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * It ignores the fact that "city street" and "highway" are not disjoint sets. --NE2 02:08, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * (indent reset) City streets are not highways. Highways can be routed on city streets, but that does not qualify for inclusion in WP:USRD. --Rschen7754 (T C) 02:26, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * And what's a city street? Is West Side Highway a city street? Is Harbor Drive a city street? Is Lloyd Expressway a city street? Is Memorial Drive a city street? --NE2 02:31, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * West Side Highway - what is the last word? Harbor Drive is an unusual case as it was a freeway but is no longer. Expressways are highways. --Rschen7754 (T C) 02:36, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Is Kings Highway not a city street then, but Linden Boulevard is? Both are very similar roads, but one is an old main highway from before Brooklyn was developed. --NE2 02:39, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * But no matter - this is lapsing into content. Fallacy of the beard - we can clearly tell what a highway and a city street are, despite your frequent questions. The issue is conduct, clearly. --Rschen7754 (T C) 02:38, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd say Wacker Drive is both a highway and city street, but you disagree. That shows that there's no clear definition. --NE2 02:39, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * That is addressed by the beard fallacy. --Rschen7754 (T C) 02:42, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * You said that "we can clearly tell what a highway and a city street are", but we can't. --NE2 02:45, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Well apparently I can, so we can. Fallacy of the beard... --Rschen7754 (T C) 02:52, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Are you saying that I'm not part of "we"? --NE2 02:53, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * (in rs) If you want to, you can be. The problem is that we are getting to "It depends on what your definition of 'is' is." --Rschen7754 (T C) 02:58, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * So in other words, I'm not part of "we" unless I agree with you. That's nice. --NE2 03:00, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * No, I'm saying that we all can tell the difference. I was being polite by saying "If you want to." --Rschen7754 (T C) 03:15, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I was serious when I said that I can't always tell the difference. --NE2 03:16, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Then you ask someone else. --Rschen7754 (T C) 03:23, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * No, then the scope is unclear. --NE2 03:28, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Not necessarily. --Rschen7754 (T C) 03:31, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Why can't we just go by "Road"? and this is content - not behavioral  —  master son T - C 02:38, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * That's what we were at, before the recent "consensus". --NE2 02:40, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * But the state wikiprojects clearly blind the scope. —  master son T - C 02:47, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I seem to be unfamiliar with that usage of "blind"; can you please clarify? Thank you. --NE2 02:50, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * US Roads has a sub project California State Routes, not California Roads. —  master son T - C 03:09, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * What does that have to do with the USRD scope? --NE2 03:11, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * This is content there is no need for this discussion. Seddon69 (talk) 03:46, 4 January 2008 (UTC) Lets keep to what this is for which is behaiviour. Seddon69 (talk) 03:47, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Poor remedy, judging by the argument here. Neither side will agree on what is clearly defined or has consensus, which indefinitely allows a claim that there is no consensus, which means no implementation is possible. –Pomte 09:31, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

USRD reminded it is part of the Wikipedia community
8) Participants of USRD are reminded that they are part of the wider Wikipedia community. Decisionmaking and consensus should not be limited to USRD; the decisions and consensus of the community as a whole should be taken into consideration.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed.  krimpet ✽  18:45, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * So what are you saying here? That consensus discussions regarding content of USRD articles should take place somewhere other than the USRD talk page(s)? If the community as a whole would like to weigh in on something specific to roads, they're more than welcome to weigh in, as far as I'm concerned. After all, USRD is part of the wider Wiki community, as you so eloquently point out. If something that we wish to accomplish and / or implement in USRD goes against the wider consensus, then I can see where that might be an issue, and we do need to address that, in the appropriate venue. Edit Centric (talk) 23:49, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * This is similar to proposal 10, repeat comment above.  Seicer  (talk) (contribs) 01:28, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Template
9) {text of proposed remedy}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
10) {text of proposed remedy}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
11) {text of proposed remedy}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
12) {text of proposed remedy}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
13) {text of proposed remedy}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Blocks
1) If it is demonstrated that NE2 is opposing consensus at WP:AE, an administrator may warn and / or block NE2.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed. --Rschen7754 (T C) 22:16, 3 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * I would support this proposal, if there is demonstrable disregard for group consensus. This should be accomplished per articles 2 and 3 below. The key issue here is finding a third-party administrator that can be reached with a modicum of regularity, and relied upon to perform the reverts in a timely manner. Edit Centric (talk) 17:59, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Support is there is disregard for consensus within the community, or if there are multiple vios of injunctions.  Seicer  (talk) (contribs) 00:50, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Support if there is such actions taking place —  master son T - C 01:16, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Reverts
2) If it is demonstrated that NE2 is opposing consensus at WP:AE, an administrator may revert these edits. Such would not violate WP:3RR.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed. --Rschen7754 (T C) 22:16, 3 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Conflict of interest
3) An involved administrator may not carry out these remedies.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * To make sure the question never arises. --Rschen7754 (T C) 22:17, 3 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

IRC is not consensus
4) If something is discussed off wiki and then applied, it is not consensus (but is likely WP:BOLD). Thus, it should not be considered consensus.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * This reads as a principle, not a remedy. Sam Blacketer (talk) 13:03, 5 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed. --Rschen7754 (T C) 01:06, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Agree, insomuch as anything that is discussed off-wiki (most likely in IRC) and then applied should not be considered consensus. Ideally, these self-same discussions should be paraphrased or summarized in-wiki, so that others may have input. Edit Centric (talk) 18:03, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed. What is the server/room name of the IRC channel?  Seicer  (talk) (contribs) 06:13, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:HWY/IRC has the info. --Rschen7754 (T C) 07:09, 8 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Depending on the outcome of the IRC case, it may well develop that #wikipedia-en-roads falls under the jurisdiction of the Arbitration Committee. Mackensen (talk) 22:22, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * As would all the other #wikipedia-en-* channels? --Rschen7754 (T C) 22:46, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree without a doubt.  —  master son T - C 05:48, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

GAR
5) If an uninvolved contributor sees that an article is reviewed by a [Wiki]Project member and disagrees with the review, the article may be taken to GAR on sight.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed. 哦，是吗？ (O-person) 17:49, 21 January 2008 (GMT)
 * For something like this the community may need to give input. --Rschen7754 (T C) 20:41, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Also as a matter of procedure this needs a remedy backing it up. --Rschen7754 (T C) 23:10, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * This seems rather unnecessary. I oppose.  Can't any article be taken to GAR at any time?  --Son (talk) 23:47, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Is there a period after passing GA like with FA (which is three months i believe) where a GA cannot go to GAR. Seddon69 (talk) 17:55, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * GAs do not have this period. 哦，是吗？ (O-person) 18:37, 21 January 2008 (GMT)
 * How is an uninvolved contributer going to know this is the case —  master son T - C 18:40, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * That would be a problem, the only option would be if you put some sort of tag on the talk page of every GA saying but that isn't something i would really like to see done. Maybe we need to think about what should happen concerning users in the project putting articles for review. Has there been problems with outside users nominating GA's for review and them not being welcomed? Seddon69 (talk) 23:04, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * There is no time limit before a GA can go to GAR. Anyone can bring a GA to GAR at any time if they believe it may not meet the good article criteria, although the GAR process may reject frivolous, inappropriate, or procedurally incorrect nominations. Furthermore, any editor can delist a good article that does not meet the criteria, as long as they follow the delisting guidelines. So, this proposal is unnecessary, and in my view unhelpful, as it encourages editors to take an article to GAR based on an algorithm rather than judgement. Geometry guy 19:16, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Template
5) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
5) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Analysis of evidence
Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis

Template

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

General discussion

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * I feel the need to give some background in terms of the history and events of USRD.


 * At USRD, there are two types of editors: national and state editors. State editors tend to stick to editing articles regarding the highways of that state. However, national editors tend to focus on 1-2 states that they are knowledgeable about as well as helping other states that need assistance; in addition to this, they work on standards to apply to all the U.S. road articles to ensure quality across the board. All of the parties to this case are national editors (including NE2), and some who have commented on this case are also state editors.


 * However, the state editors choose not to involve themselves in USRD.


 * Back in 2005, when I formed USRD, there were some state projects that already existed (under 10). Originally, this was a shell project to lower the stub threshold at WP:WSS (don't laugh!) However, over the years, it has become a stronger project, stronger than the state projects.


 * This was a strong move, as our neighbors to the north, WP:CRWP, had a project that was weak and not centralized. They have many issues right now, including the bureaucratic WP:GHR, a project of mostly stubs, massive large navboxes, etc. I believe that all of the parties would agree with me that WP:CRWP has issues as it cannot control these issues.


 * Back to the subject of USRD. Many state editors did not agree with the change of organization from the state projects. There was a valid rationale for both the WikiProject template changes as well as the consolidation of project participant lists. In regards to the WikiProject template changes, this was to standardize coding, so we didn't have to go "Wait, what was that project called? Alabama Highways WikiProject or Alabama Routes WikiProject?" Instead, we could just use . Originally, the individual state highway WikiProject templates were pointed to redirect to U.S. Roads WikiProject. Thus, if we removed the redirects and converted the tags to all point to U.S. Roads WikiProject, we figured that it would be noncontroversial since it just reduced redundancy. We were wrong. In regards to the project lists, each WP:**SH project had its own project list. However, the national editors were on nearly every list  (all 38!) even if they did nothing on the project, which was redundant. Secondly, it was extremely difficult to weed out the inactive editors by conducting a "roll call", which many other WikiProjects are done. I would estimate that about 50% of USRD users are mostly inactive, exemplifying the need to remove them from the list and the newsletter list to save bandwidth and time. In addition to this, we could automatically add users to the newsletter list and mention them in the newsletter. (Now one could ask, why don't we have one person from each project update USRD on members coming and leaving? The problem is, about 33-50% of the state highway WikiProjects are inactive. Several have been demoted to task forces or are being considered for demotion).


 * If I had to do this again, I would have started WP:USRD first and made the state highway WikiProjects as task forces (I started the second **SH WP, WP:WASH, as well as WP:IH and WP:USH). However, that is not what happened. I suggest that the relationship between USRD and its sub-projects be clarified in some manner. (And this is related to the question that I asked at the arbitration elections in 2007... unfortunately, I did not realize that this would show up in arbitration a month later...) As there are around 38 WikiProjects and task forces relating to U.S. roads, it is not possible to post every WikiProject about every decision that could affect them. We have encouraged users to put WT:USRD on their talk page and to be connected with USRD, through IRC and other means. However, few users have actually done that, caring instead only about their own states and then being upset when a nationwide decision affects them that was "unannounced" and from a "walled garden". A walled garden does not let anyone have input, right? Well, we gave plenty of chances for input, and most of the time, the discussion was placed on WT:USRD and ignored by the rest of the project (as occurred with the participants list). What are we supposed to do about this?


 * I believe that this is a separate issue from NE2's conduct, as NE2 is a national editor himself. Perhaps this is not within the purview of ArbCom, but I do believe that this issue needs to be resolved. I would almost suggest splitting the cases as these are different matters.


 * Finally, USRD and U.S. roads articles have tended to interact strangely with the rest of Wikipedia since day 1. I remember when WP:CASH, the first roads project (unless WP:HWY was first) was founded (months before USRD was), it went against the grain of WP:WSS, and there were bitter disputes about this (which I was a part of....) In fact, it was not until mid-2007 when WP:USRD fully complied with WSS! This has continued on down through the months and years. My hypothesis in regards to this matter is that many of the road editors edit Wikipedia just to edit the roads articles. Now, we have made many strides to become compliant with the rest of Wikipedia through tougher enforcement of WP:OR, WP:FU, WP:WSS and more, and to maintain high article quality, and this has been some of the aims of the national editors. However, there are some issues where roads editors in general (not just USRD) disagree with the rest of Wikipedia, leading to the furtherment of the struggles between USRD and other roads projects and the rest of Wikipedia, and USRD and the state highway WikiProjects. (Note that we have never blatantly gone against Wikipedia consensus, however.) --Rschen7754 (T C) 20:10, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I also add that the position of USRD is that it will try not to interfere with the state highway WikiProjects unless there are serious issues with that WikiProject (and in that case, it would be demoted to a task force after a discussion at WT:USRD/SUB. However, the WP:ELG, WP:USRD/MTF, WP:USRD/INNA and WP:USRD/S apply across the board to U.S. road articles as well. --Rschen7754 (T C) 20:20, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by others: