Wikipedia:Requests for comment/NE2 3

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: 22:01, 21 October 2007 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 16:01, 12 December 2024 (UTC).

NE2 (talk · contribs · logs)

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

Statement of the dispute

This is a summary written by users who are concerned by this user's conduct. Users signing other sections ("Response" or "Outside views") should not edit the "Statement of the dispute" section.

Desired outcome

This is a summary written by users who have initiated the request for comment. It should spell out exactly what the changes they'd like to see in the user, or what questions of behavior should be the focus.

To get NE2 to work better with the community, i.e. to not make widespread changes against consensus, and to gain consensus before making major changes.

Description

Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries, other than to endorse them.

NE2 posted on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Roads that he believed that the word decommission as it applies to highways (to revoke a highway's designation) was a neologism. He then proposed alternate terms to be used in place of the supposed neologism. Other editors to that page expressed dissent with his appraisal of the situation and rejected his proposed alternates on the grounds they "[don't] seem obvious", were "even worse", "quite long", and "confusing and bizarre" (the later on User talk:NE2).

After the discussion died down a bit, NE2 began making many edits to highway articles, removing the term and replacing it with his alternates. Other editors expressed their displeasure, leading NE2 to state "You don't need "consensus" to improve articles. " (Diff provided below in "Evidence of disputed behavior" item 3.) Other editors are in the process of reverting his edits.

NE2 has had previous disputes with the community:

Evidence of disputed behavior

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Roads#The new "multiplex": decommissioned? contains the discussion wherein NE2 fails to gain consensus for a change affecting many articles, but upon failure to gain a consenus begins making the changes anyway.
NE2 acts against the consensus against him:
1. [1]
2. [2]
3. [3]
4. [4]
5. [5]
6. [6]
7. [7]
8. [8]
[9][10] NE2 fails to understand 'consensus' as it applies to Wikipedia
Many additional examples are present here and throughout the editor's contributions.
[11] The next day, NE2 tries to do the same with no consensus
[12] those who disagree with NE2's position on the issue are treated without civility - in this case, called blind

Applicable policies and guidelines

{list the policies and guidelines that apply to the disputed conduct}

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

(provide diffs and links)

[13] Rschen7754 tries to resolve the dispute, but NE2 refuses
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Roads#The new "multiplex": decommissioned? No consensus is reached regarding alternative terms
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Highways#"Decommissioned"

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

Rschen7754 (T C) 22:02, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mitch32^contribs 22:03, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
JA10 Talk • Contribs 22:03, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
—Scott5114 ↗ 22:06, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 22:16, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Other users who endorse this summary

Response

I don't know how to respond. The outside view by SPUI explains some - apparently I've ticked off these people enough that they collaborate against me on IRC - but I don't know what I should do. I don't understand why this was such an issue, compared to my recent removal of the neologism "multiplex". I don't know why I'm opposed at pretty much everything I try to do, although I know how the opposition is coordinated. It's like these people don't care about making articles comprehensible; they only care about preventing me from doing so. I don't get it.

I think I understand how the change to "deleted" was a problem, although I still think it's better than "decommissioned", which many people would read as "closed and torn up". What would be a clear term?

Links to the process that led up to this (I too was surprised that "decommissioned" didn't apply to highways!) are:

Talk:Decommissioned highway - the original comment that made me investigate
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Roads#The new "multiplex": decommissioned? - my request for help, turned into "don't change our articles"
Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language#Decommissioning - confirmation that "decommissioned" is a bad term to use

I also find it amusing how I've been accused of "canvassing" in both previous RFCs, but it's the other users who are getting together and discussing how best to "deal with me".

I can make a list of all articles that I've edited to remove "decommissioned" and all that have yet to be fixed, and we can all figure out what the best term is for each article - it's not "decommissioned", and it may not be "deleted", but there's going te be a clear way to say it on each article.

I have started a new discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Highways#"Decommissioned". Can we please discuss this calmly?

[14] appears to show that the neologism came from the Route 66 "fandom", or possibly got there from the "roadgeek" community: [15]

Users who endorse this summary:

--NE2 22:58, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by SPUI

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.

I have no comment on this particular dispute, but I feel I should say something in general. Although I have retired from Wikipedia, I am still a regular in #wikipedia-en-roads on Freenode, where I sometimes help out people with old maps and general help. Much of the time, especially recently, a lot of the conversation has been bitching about NE2. The reverting here was coordinated through IRC, and this RFC was coordinated through IRC. The channel has become less of a roads channel and more of a make-fun-of-NE2-and-get-away-with-it channel.

Users who endorse this summary:

--SPUI (T - C) 22:38, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hit the nail on the head. O ₂ (息 • 吹) 01:44, 22 October 2007 (GMT)
master son^{T - C} 01:49, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I only endorse this in the manner that user bashing should not take place at an IRC channel. --Rschen7754 (T C) 02:35, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by Amarkov

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.

The problem is not that NE2 thinks that "decommisioned" is a neologism. The problem is that he acts as though opinions to the contrary do not exist, and thus asks things like "okay, so what should we change 'decommisioned' to?" Begging the question does not cause productive discussion.

Users who endorse this summary:

-Amarkov moo! 23:03, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
—Scott5114 ↗ 23:47, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rschen7754 (T C) 23:47, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
-Mitch32^contribs 00:01, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
master son^{T - C} 21:28, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
O ₂ (息 • 吹) 22:51, 22 October 2007 (GMT)
Seicer (talk) (contribs) 00:08, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response by NE2

Have you looked at the links I provided that show how the term is confusing?

Users who endorse this summary:

--NE2 23:36, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by W.marsh

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.

NE2 does seem to make a good argument. The fact that Decommissioned highway remains unreferenced seems to bolster his case that this is Wikipedia-speak and doesn't reflect real usage. I have seen no arguments from the people opposed to NE2 that suggest the term actually is in use

From the looks of it, there's been no meaningful argument from the people opposed to NE2 that "Decommissioned highway" is not a neologism (see pretty much any of the links provided so far). Rschen says it is "the best way to specify what happened" yet this is inconsistent with WP:NEO, WP:V and so on, which do not seem to support just trying to popularize our own slang words because we think they're useful. The fact that decommissioned highway remains unreferenced seems to bolster his case... if it could get a fair AFD, it's unlikely the article would survive unless references did indeed emerge.

Arguments opposed to NE2 seem to be that the alternative wordings are clunky, or that "decommissioned" is "good enough", but the concern of neologisms would seem to override this. NE2 has a lot of opponents, but as long as there's little evidence that the word is not a neologism in this context, he seems to be winning the argument.

I'm not saying he is right, but perhaps because people just don't like NE2, perhaps it's another reason, his opponents have been short on good arguments as far as I can tell, beyond stuff that basically ammounts to "it's useful" and "we like it", which won't cut it. There do seem to be some sources, why not improve Decommissioned highway and show it's not a neologism? If it really is a neologism, there's unlikely to be a great deal of support outside of the core US road project people, which ultimately don't own the road articles.

NE2 did post on my talk page requesting a comment from me here, but for the record, A) He has done this before, I think the last RFC shows a diff of him asking for my help and I agreed with his opponents on the issue that time and B) I'd already seen the RFC mentioned on AN/I. I don't think I'm here due to canvasing.

Users who endorse this summary:

Outside view by Master son

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.

Wow! I go away for a couple weeks and look what happens! O.o I really don't know what to say here. It does look obvious that no consensus has been reached regarding the "decommissioned" thing. but the fact that the Decommissioned highway article mentioned many times above has no sources - dampens this claim from the get-go. I really cannot endorse anything that has been said (outside the issue of IRC being a haven for picking on people) in this RFC due to not being involved (despite being a part of a previous RFC against NE2), but I can say this I have had to present alternate views on issues many times to keep things in check and yes I am very concerned that the IRC channel is becoming what SPUI is correctly stating. Yes I am a part of that very thing - and have bickered myself - but I think we need to focus on the task at hand here.

Find sources for the article proving the term - or have it deleted. Change the infobox's params or get rid of the parameter if you can't find a source confirming that. Lets stop bickering and calling each other out. This applies to everyone involved. Now that I'm done here - what's there to edit? master son^{T - C} 01:49, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

Outside view by Steve Summit

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.

This strikes me as a relatively minor content dispute. With respect to the word usage in question, I don't find "decommissioned" confusing at all.

While obviously motivated by the good of end-users of our roads articles, I think NE2 is taking this a bit too seriously. I doubt that the potential for confusion here is so great as to warrant this sort of strenuous debate.

In any case, as in any Wikipedia article anywhere, editors need to learn to work with each other politely in order to forge consensus, without descending into edit wars that spill over into the rest of the project. If the editors of our Abortion article can do it, surely the editors of our roads articles can do it, too! —Steve Summit (talk) 02:37, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

Rschen7754 (T C) 02:40, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
--Polaron | Talk 03:02, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mitch32^contribs 21:22, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
master son^{T - C} 21:24, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Seicer (talk) (contribs) 00:08, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by Elkman

Another argument about highway terminology? What is it about highways that gets people so touchy? Aren't there a lot more articles on Wikipedia that need a lot more work than attending to minor wording disputes?

As an example: U.S. Route 61 has been decommissioned north of Wyoming, Minnesota. Er, I'm sorry, I meant "deleted". Actually, the pavement itself didn't get deleted; it's just maintained by the counties now, although in a couple cases (Minnesota State Highway 361, probably also known as Trunk Highway 361 or State Highway 361 (Minnesota)) the state still maintains a section. In any case, the former alignment of U.S. Route 61 no longer appears on road maps as U.S. Route 61. I think there are more people here who care about documenting the history of highway alignment changes than there are people who care about documenting places such as the Northern Pacific Depot (Finlayson, Minnesota), Northern Pacific Depot (Hinckley, Minnesota), the Kettle River Sandstone Company Quarry, or the Hinckley Fire Relief House.

Users who endorse this summary:

master son^{T - C} 16:21, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Update, October 23

After receiving a note on my talk page from NE2 wanting to discuss this on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Highways, NE2 has continued to make similar edits (though not simply substitutions). I have produced six sources of the use of the term: three are from newspapers, two from books, and one from a master's thesis. These sources are listed on the talk page. NE2 continues to split hairs by saying that the usage of the term by reliable sources is not enough, but rather that the sources must define the term. While the letter of the policy states that, I believe this is an instance where common sense dictates that this word didn't just pop up last Tuesday.

Users who endorse this update:

—Scott5114 ↗ 11:26, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
--Rschen7754 (T C) 00:17, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
-- JA10 Talk • Contribs 00:35, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Seicer (talk) (contribs) 00:09, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response from NE2

The term did "just pop up last Tuesday" as far as words are concerned. It started in a few fan communities and has just recently started to appear in newspaper articles and books that have used those communities as sources. I do believe every example you've given has referred to a U.S. Highway; without a reliable definition, how do we know it applies to other classes of highway?

Users who endorse this response:

--NE2 11:31, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The definition of a neologism is pretty concrete. You need to cite reliable sources about the term, not ones that only use the term. O ₂ (息 • 吹) 00:13, 24 October 2007 (GMT)
To clarify my standpoint, it's not how much it's used in secondary sources, but how it is defined in secondary sources. This is the wrong venue to apply common sense. O ₂ (息 • 吹) 00:39, 24 October 2007 (GMT)
"As part of the Manual of Style, this page is a guideline on Wikipedia. It is a generally accepted standard that all editors should follow. However, it is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception" --Rschen7754 (T C) 00:43, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This, unfortunately, isn't one of those occasional exceptions, even though it's not set in stone. O ₂ (息 • 吹) 00:50, 24 October 2007 (GMT)
Says who? --Rschen7754 (T C) 00:56, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The guideline. You need to give it some attention here, since the term in question is not as clear as it seems. Sure, some people knowledgeable in roads and highways might know the definition clearly, but others might not know the definition from the first read of the article that the term is used in. Therefore, it is needed to replace "decommissioned" with more specific terminology/vocabulary. O ₂ (息 • 吹) 01:01, 24 October 2007 (GMT)
Most people don't know what phosphorylated means. --Rschen7754 (T C) 01:03, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
…which is why we have WP:MOSDEF. If the decommissioned highway article was sourced properly in accordance with WP:NEO, then this problem would not exist. O ₂ (息 • 吹) 01:06, 24 October 2007 (GMT)
However, this is not possible, as stated above. Therefore, we use common sense, as {{guideline}} backs up. --Rschen7754 (T C) 01:12, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is entirely possible. Just use more specific, general wording. Is that so hard? O ₂ (息 • 吹) 01:22, 24 October 2007 (GMT)
Decommissioned is the best way to say it. --Rschen7754 (T C) 01:29, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Decommissioned is not general enough for this context. Use "declared inactive" or something. O ₂ (息 • 吹) 01:32, 24 October 2007 (GMT)
Now that is a neologism. "Declared inactive"? Meaning nobody uses it? --Rschen7754 (T C) 01:39, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was only suggesting more general terminology than the ambiguous "decommission", since Wikipedia isn't all about North American terminology. The unsourced nature of decommissioned highway only further bolsters this. O ₂ (息 • 吹) 01:43, 24 October 2007 (GMT)

(Indent reset) It has been sourced. --Rschen7754 (T C) 02:58, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
master son^{T - C} 03:47, 24 October 2007 (UTC) This has become a war over a word.[reply]

Outside view by Daniel Case

I have contributed outside views to both of the other NE2 RFCs (It is worth an RFC in itself that this is the third in six months, IMO). The first time I took a generally middle-of-the-road point of view: he is a talented and dedicated editor, but he seems to err too far on the side of being bold at the expense of consensus. The second time I was on his side.

Now this time I think I'll agree with the basic complaint. After reviewing the evidence, I think we can safely say there's no consensus that (unlike "-plex") there's any preferred official alternative term for "road that physically still exists and is used but has lost its official route designation"). "Decommissioned" does not strike me as confusing — not having been heavily involved in the online roadfan community, I first encountered it here and immediately understood the meaning. When ships are decommissioned, after all, they very much remain physically in existence and seaworthy. "Deleted" is OK if you're referring to a state DOT's data base, but not otherwise (and in a road sense, seems to have more in common with being vacated, although that usually refers to closed or removed streets). I think it's far more confusing.

If "decommissioned" starts being used by newspapers and magazines, for lack of a better term, we can use it here regardless of origin. Claiming its origin in the fan community taints it somehow is rather like this amusing AfD, in which the nominator insists Wikipedia policy should be applied to publications deemed reliable sources.

NE2 should apologize for his eyepatch remark, and remember what I said in his first AfD. I appreciate the effort to gain consensus, but I don't see that it was there. Then we can drop this and go back to editing, photographing and creating quality road articles.

Also, I concur in part with SPUI. I really don't think Wikipedians have any business coordinating or discussing their actions on IRC, a walled garden by any other name. It results in rash actions for which consensus is claimed that is not reviewable by all as our discussions here on talk pages are. Thus any IRC-derived consensus is illusory (No, I don't use it myself for precisely these reasons, and also because I think online chats are the worst possible waste of computing resources). This is regrettably not the first RFC which grew out of heated discussions on IRC. Daniel Case (talk) 17:27, 21 November 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.