Someone want to point out wher these non-free images were removed from. That would really help. Viridae Talk 04:32, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
Moved from main page
I think NE2 is a great user who works hard everyday on the wiki. But the problem is that he can't work with other users in the U.S. Roads WikiProject and it can irritate other users. When NE2 wants something done and others disagree, he will not stop. Sometimes, NE2 will go forum shopping on user's talk pages. I think NE2 should learn to work with other users because the wiki is not all about him and we work as a team here. But if things keep going this way, I might have to leave WP:USRD, to escape this crap. I saw no change from the last RFC, even in Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Pennsylvania Route 39 and User talk:Son, where other users who Opposed, were fine, when we striked out their text, after completing what they asked for, but NE2 Assumed bad faith and kept making a big deal out of it. -- JA10 Talk • Contribs 04:24, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
This exchange is useless, and makes it clear that no one here quite has their heads on straight. Why not just all steer clear of the disputed article(s) for a week or two? Wikis have a way of going on working. ( ESkog)( Talk) 05:48, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
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 son T - C 23:25, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
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 {{ maintained}} 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)
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 son T - C 01:35, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Someone want to point out wher these non-free images were removed from. That would really help. Viridae Talk 04:32, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
Moved from main page
I think NE2 is a great user who works hard everyday on the wiki. But the problem is that he can't work with other users in the U.S. Roads WikiProject and it can irritate other users. When NE2 wants something done and others disagree, he will not stop. Sometimes, NE2 will go forum shopping on user's talk pages. I think NE2 should learn to work with other users because the wiki is not all about him and we work as a team here. But if things keep going this way, I might have to leave WP:USRD, to escape this crap. I saw no change from the last RFC, even in Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Pennsylvania Route 39 and User talk:Son, where other users who Opposed, were fine, when we striked out their text, after completing what they asked for, but NE2 Assumed bad faith and kept making a big deal out of it. -- JA10 Talk • Contribs 04:24, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
This exchange is useless, and makes it clear that no one here quite has their heads on straight. Why not just all steer clear of the disputed article(s) for a week or two? Wikis have a way of going on working. ( ESkog)( Talk) 05:48, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
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 son T - C 23:25, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
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 {{ maintained}} 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)
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 son T - C 01:35, 3 August 2007 (UTC)