Wikipedia:Requests for comment/NE2 (second RFC)

In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 17:44, 22 July 2007 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 16:48, 24 June 2024 (UTC).

---

• NE2 (talk · contribs · logs)

---

Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.

After the disputes in the

.

Desired outcome

Though NE2 is trying to follow consensus as explained in the last RFC, he is gradually reverting back to his selfishness and

ways. He should act in a manner that encourages gaining consensus when things can be controversial, learn that he can't always get what he wants, and to avoid disrupting consensus agreed processes.

Description

Ever since his last RFC, his behaviour has improved just a tad, but unfortunately now, he has returned to his selfishness and bureaucratic ways.

NE2 removed many instances of the following images from highways that reference them:

• Image:New Jersey Turnpike Shield.svg
• Image:Kansas Turnpike.svg
• WP:NFCC#8
  ." This was done despite the Purpose of Use (ex for Image:New Jersey Turnpike Shield.svg) stating:

  “

  To visually identify the New Jersey Turnpike in the article in question, any article of a road system that connects to the New Jersey Turnpike (e.g., the Pennsylvania Turnpike), and any article referring to the system infrastructure (e.g., E-ZPass).

  ”

  Similar Purpose of Use statements exist on the other images listed.

  NE2 claimed

  WP:ANI
  .

  Evidence of disputed behaviour

  1. [1] forum shopping just so that he can get his way
  2. [2] doing something where consensus was not reached
  3. [3] misunderstanding the fair use criteria and rationale
  4. [4] Conditional delete vote - an effort was made to adopt the multiple user parameter

  Applicable policies and guidelines

  1. WP:WL
  2. WP:NOT#BURO
  3. WP:CONS
  4. WP:POINT
  5. WP:TROLL
  6. WP:FUC
  7. WP:CANVASS

  Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

  1. [5] a [then] third-party intervening
  2. [6] NE2's response to the previous intervention

  Users certifying the basis for this dispute

  {Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

  1. (→O - RLY?) 18:17, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. master son^{T - C} 19:23, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Other users who endorse this summary

  1. TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 20:31, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. JA10 Talk • Contribs 20:41, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. —
     talk • contribs • email) 21:20, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
     ]

  Response

  This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete. Users signing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Outside Views") should not edit the "Response" section.

  I was applying the non-free content criterion 8 correctly, and avoiding bureaucracy by just sticking my name in the template. This is ridiculous. --NE2 19:43, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Users who endorse this summary:

  1. The only example given (talk page) of was indeed the correct application of policy. If more example might be given a clearer picture might emerge. However if they are all in the same vein then NE2 is in the right. Viridae^Talk 07:14, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. NE2 is definitely correct on the issue of NFCC #8. Just because someone's made up a use rationale doesn't make it valid. Criteria #3 (minimal use) and #8 (decorative use) are both being violated here, and no consensus is allowed to trump policy. (ESkog)^(Talk) 18:46, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

     Addendum: Per this discussion, it seems that some of these images may actually be in the public domain. That doesn't take away from the fact that NE2 was engaging in a good-faith attempt to correctly enforce our non-free content policies. (ESkog)^(Talk) 22:24, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

     In which the licensing status of toll road shields are now, disputed. (→O - RLY?) 02:03, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  3. While some of the edit summaries show me that NE2 hasn't yet addressed the prickliness amply documented in the first RfC, as a whole this RfC boils down to a) the disputed use of a template that seems to be (properly) headed for deletion and b) a good-faith effort to apply FUC 8. While this 1963 thing intrigues me, it isn't settled yet, and until it is we have to abide by it. Let's drop this and focus our energies on resolving the copyright status (or lack thereof) of toll-road logos. Daniel Case 03:13, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Outside view by Imdanumber1

  This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.

  Rationale: This is the second time an RFC has been filed on NE2. Obviously the user is not showing any signs of changing, and if it continues, take it to ArbCom and have him blocked. If that seems like the only way to put an end to his problematic ways, do so. This has got to stop NE2. Seriously. If you need to take a break away from Wikipedia (which is what you might need), then do yourself a favor and take some time off. It seems like the only way to prevent yourself from running into trouble.

  Users who endorse this summary:

  1. —
     talk • contribs • email) 21:29, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
     ]
  2. JA10 Talk • Contribs 07:36, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Son 13:35, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
     ]

  JohnnyAlbert10's view

  I think NE2 is a great user who works hard everyday on the wiki. But the problem is that he can't

  Assumed bad faith and kept making a big deal out of it. -- JA10 Talk • Contribs 04:24, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  Outside view by Krimpet

  NE2 is a very

  WP:BOLD
  editor, and can be rather stubborn at times. However, it concerns me that the actions of the U.S. Roads WikiProject leadership are just as much, if not more, to blame.

  The core of the issue, I believe, is that USRD and its pages are treated too much like a

  walled garden
  , rather than as part of the Wikipedia project as a whole, with an inappropriate priority given to USRD processes, guidelines, and discussion, causing an inappropriate amount of internal bureaucracy. NE2's removing the turnpike shields was, in fact, mandated by our fair-use guidelines, which have been developed and refined over a long time by the community. His attempts to "forum shop" and "wikilawyer" were not out of line; he was trying to follow the spirit of established Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and request third-party help from outside sources, such as AN/I, in resolving disputes.

  In my opinion, USRD really needs to realize that they are part of the broader Wikipedia community, and function as part of it, rather than having an "us vs. them" attitude towards the rest of the project, NE2 included. The USRD regulars, as well as NE2, have made a lot of great contributions to the encyclopedia, but collaboration with the encyclopedia as a whole is vital to the success of both. K

  mpet 20:51, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  Users who endorse this summary:

  1. K
     mpet 20:51, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
     ]
  2. master son^{T - C} 23:18, 31 July 2007 (UTC) (see my comment about this on the Talk page)[reply]
  3. Endorse this, and Master_son's related stuff on the talk page. Viridae^Talk 00:46, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. (ESkog)^(Talk) 14:32, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Wikiprojects are subordinate to the community and project as a whole, not the other way around. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:27, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. I see no reason why this should be going on any longer. Krimpet is right. I scratched my other support and moved it down here. The occurrence of problems are just...silly. And it, from the looks of it, is starting to cool off. --
     Talk 01:06, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
     ]

  Discussion

  All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.