Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Highways 2/Proposed decision

message: (any?)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by FT2 (talk • contribs) 13:06, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't understand your question. El_C 01:14, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm guessing he might be asking for Kirill's insight into how WikiProject's work. If I was an arbitrator, I'd be asking Kirill how some WikiProjects (in his case Wikipedia:WikiProject Military History) work well, and seeing if he has any insights into how to "heal" the problems that seem to have arisen at Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads (or whatever it is called). By the way, is it acceptable to ask why an arbitrator recused? Carcharoth (talk) 05:39, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I assume it's because of Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council#What's the use of a project tag on the talk page? --NE2 05:45, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That might explain it. Thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 05:52, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Input from arbcom members with personal knowledge and insight into the situation 

message: I assume that the Committee is not done making proposals in regards to this case? --Rschen7754 (T C) 22:44, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Anybody? --Rschen7754 (T C) 01:38, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: My understanding, after having had a quick chat with a member of the ArbCom, is that the IRC case and the Working Group on nationalist disputes is currently consuming much of the committee's attention — I expect that once that particular dust settles down they'll have the resources to finish working with the other cases, including this one.  — Coren (talk) 04:19, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed decision

message: You have not addressed any specific editors in this case yet. Say their conduct was right, their conduct was wrong, whatever - at least say something about the specific editors - it's only fair. --Rschen7754 (T C) 05:54, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I do find it odd - and rather erroneous - that no user conduct is being addressed by ArbCom even though it is said conduct that prompted this case in the first place. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 06:06, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Could we at least receive confirmation that ArbCom has been made aware of this request? --Rschen7754 (T C) 00:23, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Anybody? --Rschen7754 (T C) 03:05, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Thank you. --Rschen7754 (T C) 03:18, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

text: I suggest "NE2 is a silly sausage and should not challenge the serious businessmen." --NE2 12:07, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Exactly part of my point, if not exactly said that way, Scott. The two of us haven't agreed 100% in the past, and we won't in the future, but we continue to work together, as one USRD community to write, edit and improve articles. --Imzadi1979 (talk) 20:32, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

text: I believe that this is a slight misrepresentation of the facts. In many, if not most cases, the "USRD people" have formed a consensus against NE2 at the time of the discussion. I cite the auto trails discussion - we explicitly stated that we did not want auto trails as part of state highway WikiProjects, but NE2 went against the consensus, formed that very day. In addition to this, discussions have always taken place following NE2's controversial actions - can you cite an instance where that has not occurred? --Rschen7754 (T C) 03:04, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Another recent example of where what you claim did not occur. --Rschen7754 (T C) 03:18, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: A request to the arbitrators

message: I'm curious how this should be applied. I reverted U.S. Route 50 in California to match WP:LEAD#Bold title and was warned for edit warring. --NE2 02:13, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Note the guideline is not clear cut here: U.S. Route 50 is not strictly the subject of that article and the guideline says "Avoid links in the bold title words." In this case it seems "the title is simply descriptive". –Pomte 05:55, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see what's not clear-cut about it; I agree with your analysis that nothing should be bolded. --NE2 07:00, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I would have to agree as well. --Rschen7754 (T C) 07:25, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I misinterpreted your position based on a wrong diff. –Pomte 04:04, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Editors working to implement guidelines that have wide consensus support within the community need not rehash the discussion of a general guideline each time they apply it.

message: After reading through the Mantanmoreland case, I'm starting to doubt whether ArbCom really will help us here. I think what we really need is some sort of structured discussion. If I were to request a mediation on the topic of project scopes - or a larger topic - would the "major players" here all participate in good faith and listen to all sides? --NE2 04:51, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: How exactly is that case relevant? The apparent ability of ArbCom to handle one case has no bearing on its past decisions. --Coredesat 04:57, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's relevant to whether ArbCom will actually "fix" anything; the proposed decision on the highways case shows a lack of useful remedies. I thought this was just because they were busy and had not gotten around to it, but I'm not so sure about that now. --NE2 05:03, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

text: While the scope dispute needs to be resolved - the main issues relate to user conduct. These issues need to be resolved. --Rschen7754 (T C) 05:03, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see any user conduct remedies either here, or indication that there will be any. --NE2 05:06, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The main problem that we have is that you act as though you're the project, when you're not. --Rschen7754 (T C) 05:07, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you see the ArbCom doing anything about that "problem"? --NE2 05:08, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: [edit conflict] Even though I don't like it when NE2 reverts some of my (admittedly unhelpful) edits, NE2 has, however, started discussions to help resolve the disputes. Sometimes, he lets things go, either he thinks it's time to move on or he just doesn't want to break the 3RR. And to Rschen7754, I know I'm not perfect, but neither are you. Right now, my interpretation of NE2 is that, although he can be stubborn sometimes, like you said he's not the project; he's just a dedicated contributor to the project. My problem with him is that sometimes, he doesn't let me integrate my ideas into the project, and yes, some of my ideas are valid. ^_^ AL2TB ^_^ 05:13, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

text: (edit conflict) You can't expect the ArbCom to do many things at once. The Mantanmoreland case appears to have greater priority at this time. This case is not closed; additional proposals can still be made on the workshop page. --Coredesat 05:16, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You seem to be talking about inaction due to other cases - which is valid, but doesn't explain why the Mantanmoreland case isn't producing anything useful. --NE2 05:21, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, at any rate, whether it is or not doesn't have anything to do with this case. --Coredesat 05:45, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Since it's the same arbitrators, it sort of does... --NE2 05:48, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

text: Whether or not it's ArbCom sanctionable, this is the main problem that is leading to our disagreements. You're not always right. Heck, I'm not always right. This got SPUI into trouble as well. I've probably gotten bitten at one time or another for trying to act as the project myself. --Rschen7754 (T C) 05:58, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

text: Kéiryn hit it right on the head.  The clan of USRD (which includes myself - though I'm loosening up quite a bit) is insisting that they're always right (I'm not naming individuals, just pointing to the group) and that is the center of this dispute.  The problem here is that we must realize that WikiProjects cannot set policy only full community (as in all Wikipedia) consensus can - and that results in those such as WP:MOS or its subsets (including WP:USSH) or WP:NOT.  Things like the pages under WP:USRD are simply guidelines.  Its been things like this that have led to multiple edit wars, disputes, "ignorance of consensus", etc. Both Sides are as stubborn as the other.  — master sonT - C 21:07, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Remember that the problem that sparked this case though was when NE2 waged a war against something that was supported by five other users. He also stated twice that even if we did have a solid, otherwise uncontentious consensus, he would still ignore it - there is evidence available. This is the sort of attitude that I believe needs to be addressed. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 22:30, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Time to move on?

message: The parties are still playing leaderboard games. More shell projects appears to be the only reasonable solution. --NE2 03:00, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I guess you're not ready to move on, seeing as how everyone is willing to compromise except you. -- Kéiryn talk 03:41, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

text: What's a leaderboard game?  — master sonT - C 06:30, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Not time to move on

message: What is the Arbitration Committee's view of NE2's opposition to the compromise proposed at compromise? --Rschen7754 (T C) 05:42, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: "I'll ignore that consensus, you'll start another ArbCom case, and we'll waste another two months."  This isn't going to end until we get some outside input. -- Kéiryn talk 15:44, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I actually asked for some outside input and Kirill responded, but he seems to have been ignored. --NE2 17:12, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Not really, seeing as how his proposal was to tweak the categorization structure, which was also what you proposed, which was also what I proposed.  I don't see how you can possibly think he was ignored when there's a big long section where we politely answer all his questions. -- Kéiryn talk 17:19, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Question for the Arbitration Committee

message: Seeing as the Arbitration Committee has decided to abandon the Highways case (a shame, really) would they be open to suspending the case for 30 days so that a formal mediation can take place? If the mediation fails, then the case can be resumed. --Rschen7754 (T C) 01:34, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  A proposal - Matthew Hoffman solution

message: I find the process that this Arbitration has gone through is extremely disappointing.  Several factors of me scaling back from Wikipedia includes this arbitration because of the lack of movement on it.  At one point, not too long ago, I had faith in the processes within Wikipedia.  I no longer have such faith, and thus am no longer very active in editing on the encyclopedia.  Because of the lack of inactivity in this particular case, it suggests a problem with ArbCom and Wikipedia in general.  
--Son (talk) 05:36, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There's been discussion about the status of this case, I guess on a couple of other pages, per the reminders from Rschen. We actually intend to post further remedy proposals within the next 24 hours or so. Newyorkbrad (talk) 05:38, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expression of disappointment 

message: From the GA perspective, R4 (refer to previous consensus if needed) is a better-tuned response than FoF5 (spill-over) to the problems I have seen in USRD interaction with the rest of the encyclopedia, so thanks for introducing and supporting that.
This is the first ArbCom case I've watchlisted, and I'm impressed by the work ArbCom does, especially by what I see as an ideal to intervene in as minimal a way as possible to smooth over problems, so that editorial consensus can sort out the rest. I've learned a lot too! Geometry guy 21:24, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thanks