Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/NE2 (second RFC)

message: Someone want to point out wher these non-free images were removed from. That would really help. ViridaeTalk 04:32, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's an example:  --NE2 06:20, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

message: Are you asking for us to override USER:NE2's edits or to declare him a problem Wikipedian?  As for his removing the images, it's clear that the rationale is valid and the images belong on the articles.  Using highway signs and shields to identify the highway is as straightforward and noncontroversial a use of logos for purposes of identification as you are going to get on Wikipedia.  Their use goes beyond permitted; it is the preferred style in articles about highways.  Nonfree content #8 does not bar their use.  You will note that in updating criterion #8 we have moved away from describing uses as "decorative," a term that caused some confusion.  Rather, it is strictly a matter of the contribution to the reader's understanding of the article.  Identification is an explicitly recognized purpose in the guidelines.  However, in the spirit of assuming good faith I don't see that aggressively pushing a position, even a wrong position that perfectly good images should be deleted, rises to the level of improper conduct.  In the RFC he is called selfish, and some other things, and I just don't see the need to take it to that level.  I haven't looked over what he may or may not have done in the past.  That's relevant if he's doing something wrong now and the question is whether he should be blocked.  But it just isn't clear that he's crossed a line here.   Wikilawyering and playing games with the adopt-a-highway system, aren't big policy violations either because those things don't have the force of policy.  So my quick take is that it's premature to discuss blocking.  It's a two step process.  If you have a dispute over whether the images belong, run that dispute up the dispute resolution process.  If he won't cooperate or he keeps reverting after a mediated or arbitrated solution, then you can come back and claim he is violating consensus.  Wikidemo 09:51, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is the second time an RFC has been filed on NE2. Obviously the user isn't showing signs of changing, and although I have taken him to Wikiquette alerts and mediation request, both have failed. We don't need him if he continues to be disruptive. Point blank. —Imdanumber1 (talk • contribs • email) 11:24, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The example he gave above is indeed a correct removal of a fair use image from a situation in which it didn't qualify for fair use. If you would like to cite some examples where this isn't the case, go ahead and do so. But conducting an rfc on a user for CORRECTLY applying policy is quite ridiculous. ViridaeTalk 11:27, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Explain to me why that's correct in your view - I don't see anything wrong with it being there. Its identifying the route. and if you look at the fair-use rationale for the image, it explicitly states so.  master sonT - C 17:49, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I may be wrong, but you seem to be confusing using the logo on the article about the road itself - whech should never be a problem - and using it next to a link to the article about the road on other articles. This would be like putting the Windows, Mac, and other OS logos on articles about games that support those OSes. They're probably perfectly legal, although mapmakers usually don't place the logo on - for instance, the New Jersey page of the Rand McNally road atlas uses text for the Atlantic City Expressway - but certainly a decorative use, and not one that our policy allows for. --NE2 11:42, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So are you also proposing the removal of all state highway shields as well?  I have only seen maps use interstate and US highway shields on maps, haven't see any others used.  --Holderca1 13:50, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Also, I don't see how including the images violates the policy, it says nothing about being required to be used on that roads article only or anything about decorative use.  I think its inclusion does increase the readers understanding, there are a lot of visual people out there, seeing the shield is often more helpful than than roads name.  --Holderca1 14:01, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting.  "Decorative" use simply isn't an issue as the policy now stands, and if it were an issue, using signs to stand for roads is clearly more than decorative.  It's for identification.  The question of significance is now treated more directly as a question whether the use "significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic."  The formal guidelines don't reach the issue of roadsigns at all.  There is no hint of any copyright violation or other fair use problem, and I don't see how including road signs could possibly hurt the underlying free content goal, so I would argue that the signs are allowable as markers on maps and directories of roads.  I'll make sure we address that issue and see if we can get a direct yes/no answer as we go through the WP:NONFREE list of examples.  In the meanwhile, isn't the norm among highway articles to include the road signs?  If so I wouldn't go about overturning accpted Wikipedia conventions based on gray areas of policy.  Clarify or change the policy first, then start deleting images if you succeed.  Wikidemo 15:18, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah—by default we include the road signs in the junctions.  It is for identification, which contributes significantly to a [visual] reader's understanding of the road intersected.  If we ignore the rule and go by common sense rather than tightly sticking to policies and guidelines, then this issue is basically cleared. ([ →]O - RLY?) 15:29, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

text: The policy is very clear: don't use a nonfree image where text will suffice. --NE2 15:40, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But in our case, text doesn't suffice for our [visual] readers.  Would readers prefer a shield alongside a link to the article, or just plain text? ([ →]O - RLY?) 15:42, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe I already tried once to amend the non-free content policy to allow toll road logos to be used next to a link to the article, and failed. If you would like to try again, feel free, but right now the policy is very clear. --NE2 17:45, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: However, showing the toll road shield is not decoration; it contributes to the content of the article for our [visual] readers.  All you did on WT:FUC is post a link to this RFC, which doesn't really give much background information.  This issue now is to deal with common sense and to not lose it.  It is apparent that you are losing your common sense at this moment, and would strongly suggest you to rethink this. ([ →]O - RLY?) 17:50, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Just so you know the path you are walking, state highway shields fall under the same criteria as the toll shields, since only works of the US Federal Government are public domain, the same is not true of states.  --Holderca1 18:23, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Rescinding my comment per User_talk:Holderca1#State_Highway_shields.  --Holderca1 18:38, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So wouldn't toll shields fall under the same criteria as other state highway shields?  For example, North Texas Tollway Authority (NTTA) is a political subdivision of the State of Texas, since all other state highway shields are PD, wouldn't shields of the NTTA be as well?  If this is true, than the shields that are actually in question are of those of privately owned toll roads, not publically owned toll roads.  --Holderca1 19:28, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, unless the toll road shields are in the state MUTCD. --NE2 17:37, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: @Holderca1: Things like Toll 255 are in the Texas MUTCD. ([ →]O - RLY?) 17:54, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, the standardized toll shields with the flag at the bottom are; the special ones like the Dallas North Tollway and Fort Bend Parkway Toll Road are not. --NE2 19:29, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Commentary on dispute 

message: This RFC isn't getting nowhere, and his attitude is getting worse, I suggest we take this case to ArbCom before thing get too heated. I never knew how disruptive and disrespectful NE2 is. —Imdanumber1 (talk • contribs • email) 05:41, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I haven't seen anything that warrants the RfC, let alone an arbcom case. ViridaeTalk 06:26, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Useless RFC? 

message: I have to say that what I have seen since I certified this RFC was exactly as Krimpet explained - it is looking more and more like a walled garden.  I think that from this point forward I am going to do my own thing with USRD.  Yeah - I'll share some of the blame for what happened here with this RFC, but I am realizing that the stuff isn't going to get any better with USRD unless Everyone shapes up.
NE2 has been making the right changes, and the fact is, Wikipedia is about free content - and if fair use rules come into play the best solution is to abide by the rules - not rant and rave and put up premature and/or pointless RFCs or cry to Arbcomm.  I know I'm one of those on shaky ground, NE2, and I hope to continue to work with you despite that.  We need to work together as a team, and judging by this RFC, the previous one and the RFArb that were posted, we're not.master sonT - C 23:25, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Endorsment of Krimpet's view 

message: I signed this RFC because I disagreed with the removal of toll road shields. This, I have since realized after taking a few days off, was not a fault of the editor, NE2, as he was simply following the policies laid down for fair use. So in reality, it is with the policy I have issue and not NE2, at least in that respect. That is as far as I will go with that, as it is unlikely that the policy will ever be changed. Will I obey the policy? Yes, but I don't have to like it, nor will I.
The other issue brought up in this was the USRD adoption template. Though I saw no harm in the template, I have no objections to its deletion as I seriously doubt that any other wikiproject has a personalized template. I originally gave my approval to the USRD AAH idea, but it soon spiraled out of control afterward, as editors were adopting only articles that they were already editing anyway, defeating what I believed was the true purpose of the AAH collaboration. So yes, in reality, the template became an over-specific  and was correctly sent to TFD.
I've had disputes with NE2 at various points in the past, but there isn't one effective editor who hasn't had a dispute with another editor at some point. The one that stands out most was on NY 52, but that seemed to turn out well after discussion on the talk page.
Echoing Master_son's comments above, USRD has been divided into any number of camps lately, with myself admittedly included in one. However, I took a week off, working on some other things, allowing me to clear my head and return with a fresh mind. These camps need to be eliminated - now. Does it mean we have to live in 100% harmony 100% of the time? No, disagreements are natural, and usually mean that progress is being made. But a disagreement and a camp are two different things. Sadly, IRC has begun to become a camp, again, one that I was part of. And again, after my self-imposed break, I realize now that this was wrong and, from this point on, I will use IRC for what it was originally intended for - instant collaboration - instead of bashing other editors who are making good faith edits against their beliefs. And I hope everyone else who uses or used IRC will begin to use the channel for that purpose as well. Am I guilty of bashing? Yes, but I can't change the past.
As a closing note, anyone with a grudge against NE2 should look inside themselves and determine exactly why the grudge exists. Most will say it's the fault of the other editor. But what it really is stems down to something what the other editor did. Those with a grudge need to find that "something" and decipher what led to the "something". My "something" with NE2 was NY 52 and the FU shields. But after deep thought, both incidents were actions of good faith. As previously stated, NY 52 was hammered out on the talk and the shields were removed to comply with site policy. To be fair, the road project hasn't been the only project to take a hit for this - the railroad project (RR logos) and TV projects (episode images) have rightfully been affected as well. So I have no real issues with NE2. Call it flipflopping, call it two-faced; I prefer to call it reaching a better opinion after thinking for a while. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 06:22, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I like to call it an RfC in action. ViridaeTalk 07:34, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've also taken a few days off, and right now, I'm editing from somewhere in China.  Taking a few days off from everything that has gone on can almost always give everyone a different view of the world, and this is exactly what happened here.  Now, can we all get back to building the pedia? ([ →]O - RLY?) 03:37, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Personal commentary 

message: Since the result of this was that actions taken by NE2 were the right actions and the concensus agreed this was unwarranted, I am archiving this. master sonT - C 01:35, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archiving