Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-12-28 WikiProject U.S. Roads

Wikipedia Mediation Cabal
Status	open
Request date	Unknown
Requesting party	Unknown
Parties involved	Rschen7754, NE2, TwinsMetsFan, Scott5114, Mitchazenia, Lpangelrob, Son, JohnnyAlbert10, O
Mediator(s)	Keilana(recall)
Comment	Checking in with parties for acceptance of me as mediator.

[[Category:Wikipedia Medcab active cases|]][[Category:Wikipedia medcab maintenance|]]

Request details

Who are the involved parties?

Rschen7754, NE2, TwinsMetsFan, Scott5114, Mitchazenia, Lpangelrob, Son, JohnnyAlbert10, O

What's going on?

NE2 is ignoring consensus regarding the scope of WP:USRD with edits such as [1].

Also see Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Creating competition between projects? and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council#What's the use of a project tag on the talk page?.

What would you like to change about that?

He needs to listen to consensus.

Mediator notes

• I have accepted the case and am waiting for all parties to agree to me as mediator. If someone does not agree to my being mediator, I will of course step down and allow someone else to mediate the case. Keilana_(recall) 21:48, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

I'll be popping in and out over the next week from Washington, so I may not respond right away to inquiries. --Rschen7754 (T C) 21:19, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

This is pretty biased against me; I don't know if I'll accept. My main arguments can be seen at User:NE2/USRD scope. --NE2 21:29, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

So what would you propose? WP:RFC? WP:ARBCOM? Or your running amuck around USRD and telling us to shut up? --Rschen7754 (T C) 21:37, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

No objections to mediator. --Rschen7754 (T C) 21:41, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

No objections here. This is about the fourth or fifth time that NE2 has bashed heads with the rest of the community, so I hope we can finally get this resolved some way without going up to ArbCom. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 21:45, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

No objections here either. As Scott said, RFC has failed three times to improve NE2's behavior, and I hope we don't have to go to ArbCom to finally resolve this. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 21:54, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

[2] --Rschen7754 (T C) 21:55, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

One of the major issues seems to be that some people just don't like unnumbered highways, even where more notable than the numbered ones, and not only want them removed from the project but deleted: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brockway Mountain Drive, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/East Fork Road --NE2 21:59, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

That is not an issue. Quit trying to distract the issue. --Rschen7754 (T C) 22:02, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

That's part of the issue. If you're going to restrict this mediation to my conduct, I'll have to decline. --NE2 22:15, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Because you would lose? --Rschen7754 (T C) 22:17, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Because it's set up for my "loss". --NE2 22:18, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Also see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/NE2, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/NE2 (second RFC), and Wikipedia:Requests for comment/NE2 3. --Rschen7754 (T C) 22:04, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm an involved party? How? —Rob (talk) 22:13, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

You commented on the issue. I just put in everyone who had commented through involvement in USRD. Sorry... (involvement doesn't imply bad things about you...) --Rschen7754 (T C) 22:17, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Two things. Everyone needs to listen civilly to everyone's side (not that you haven't, just a preemptive reminder). Second, if you were only marginally involved in the comments, and you do not wish to participate, then strike yourself from the list. Keilana_(recall) 22:42, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I have no objections. This is an issue that needs a resolution. --Son (talk) 22:41, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Scott5114 changed the scope despite this mediation being filed. It's pretty clear that there's no attempt to come to a resolution. --NE2 00:16, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

That's crap, and you know it. What was WT:USRD all about? --Rschen7754 (T C) 00:19, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment by uninvolved editor: The article East Fork Road seems to have be a token in this disagreement. Several of the participants in this mediation have participated in that discussion and some appear to vote as a bloc, ignoring the notability standard that they recently approved. That's unhelpful. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:21, 29 December 2007 (UTC)