Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Highways/Proposed decision: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 22:37, 13 June 2006

I disagree strongly with the proposed injunction. Just looking through my move log:

07:57, 7 June 2006 SPUI moved Interstate 895B to Interstate 895 Spur - I made this at what had been a red link, and immediately moved it to a better name
07:30, 7 June 2006 SPUI moved Washington Boulevard to Washington Boulevard (Los Angeles) (dab) - simple disambiguation of a local street
00:37, 5 June 2006 SPUI moved U.S. Route 60 in Illinois to U.S. Route 60/62 in Illinois (merging) - merging this page with U.S. Route 62 in Illinois, as the two share a common routing - note that the injunction would have forced me to copy-paste move to complete the merge
20:12, 3 June 2006 SPUI moved Airport Expressway to Airport Expressway (Beijing) (dab) - another disambiguation
09:23, 25 May 2006 SPUI moved Talk:Interstate 70 in Pennsylvania to Interstate 70 in Pennsylvania (ready to move) - I wrote the article on its talk page and then moved it to article space when ready
08:22, 25 May 2006 SPUI moved Alphabet Loop to Downtown freeway loop (Kansas City) (real name) - "Alphabet Loop" is a neologism
05:23, 11 May 2006 SPUI moved Old Spanish Trail to Old Spanish Trail (trade route) (dab) - another disambiguation
06:56, 1 April 2006 SPUI moved Interstate 295 (Delaware-New Jersey-Pennsylvania) to Interstate 295 (Delaware-New Jersey) (it will not enter Pennsylvania) - in this case, the people doing the Pennsylvania Turnpike/Interstate 95 Interchange Project decided that I-195 rather than I-295 would enter Pennsylvania.

Also, for moves that are within the expected scope (state highways), I recently moved most Pennsylvania and Michigan routes, in accordance with discussion on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pennsylvania State Highways and Talk:List of highways in Michigan. A little while ago, I was asked to move Illinois (Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Illinois State Routes) - this is repetitive work, and Rob couldn't find a bot to do it.

While this injunction may prevent move wars, it will also prevent legitimate moves and encourage copy-paste moving. --SPUI (T - C) 12:38, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest that the injunction be scoped to include copy-and-paste behaviour, as being the same thing, by worse means. (I'd certainly proactively interpret it that way, unless I'm pressed not to.) OTOH, an "affirmative defence" that the page-move was uncontroversial would be sensible (and again, how I'd interpret it in any case). If that's too vague, then discuss beforehand, and/or ask a "non-party" to make the move. Alai 16:53, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Back when there was "approval" on AN/I to block anyone moving a state highway article, Rschen7754 said that he would have blocked me for making the move of Interstate 295 (Delaware-New Jersey-Pennsylvania) if it was a state highway instead of an Interstate. Administrators cannot be counted on to use judgement. --SPUI (T - C) 20:02, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd likewise assume that parties to the dispute would not, sensibly, participate in enforcing any such injunction. But while the expectation of admin sensibleness is indeed not an absolute one, we're rather stuck with it as a reasonable hope, given that admins are the people who do the blocking, under one criterion or another, subject to peer and arbcom review (crucially). Personally I'd happy either for the AC to tweak the injunction along the lines I've suggested, or for it to be left as is, since it's pretty clear that anyone enforcing it during the arbitration will be liable to scrutiny on such decisions. Alai 20:48, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How about the ban being only if you're moving with parenthetical disambiguation or vice versa? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 22:37, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Rschen there. It should be obvious which moves are relevant to this Arbcom case, and which are not.

As a further question, should this then be expanded to page edits as well? Again, only edits dealing with "State Route X (Statename)" vs. "Statename State Route X". I'm referring to (for example) this edit, where Freakofnurture edited my two links to his liking. One of my links was new, the other changed an erroneous "State Route 410 (California)" to "Washington State Route 410". I admit I could have just as easily made it "State Route 410 (Washington)", but since I was correcting an actual error, my edit was productive. Freakofnurture's edit made no changes to the article text (since I already used a piped alternative), not to any links, and thus were totally unnecessary. -- Northenglish 23:05, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes. Wikipedia:WikiProject California State Highways/Completion list, List of Washington State Routes, all sorts of stuff (see the recent edits to California State Route 3). It's bad. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 23:08, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it is bad - Rschen7754 revert-warring to keep his bloated infobox in. --SPUI (T - C) 23:37, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wait... what infobox? Oh yeah- the one that is consensus based? WT:CASH --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 23:41, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So-called consensus is not a reason to push utter shit on the readers. I dislike edit warring, but the alternative is providing the readers with an inferior project - and the decision is clear. --SPUI (T - C) 23:42, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sweet. Argument is made for me. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 23:45, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I take it you agree then? That you edit war to provide an inferior product? --SPUI (T - C) 23:50, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No... that you're unwilling to listen to consensus. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 23:52, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. I realize when "consensus" is wrong, and has to be ignored. Consensus got the U.S. Dubya. --SPUI (T - C) 23:53, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

POV. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 23:55, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We make "POV" editing decisions every day. Please stop with the non sequiturs. --SPUI (T - C) 23:57, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh boy. Wait... am I on Wikipedia? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 23:58, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, you're on goatse.cx. --SPUI (T - C) 00:00, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I just realized that this can be interpreted to say that Rschen7754 is the one stretching his anus; that was not the intent. --SPUI (T - C) 00:11, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The maturity level here is astounding. -- Northenglish 02:53, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(Response to: "Exactly. I realize when "consensus" is wrong, and has to be ignored. Consensus got the U.S. Dubya.") Even if presidential elections were decided by consensus (they're not), there's still something fundamentally flawed with your statement. Even if I believe "consensus" is wrong and George W. Bush should not be our president, I cannot storm the Oval Office to remove him and install John Kerry instead. Similarly, even though you believe consensus regarding the naming convention is wrong, you cannot go around making thousands of page moves defying consensus.

Again, the argument is made for us. -- Northenglish 20:26, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, there is general consensus in the U.S. to accept W. If there wasn't, we'd have uprisings. Thus, in this case, we see that there is actually no consensus. Consensus is the cceptance of the result by all parties, whether they actually believe it to be the best choice or not. --SPUI (T - C) 22:30, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, how does this comment help you? You say you realize when consensus is wrong and has to be ignored. So are you ignoring the "wrong consensus" that George W. Bush is our president and causing uprisings? Because that's what you did do here.

Perhaps we do not have consensus anymore (although consensus is not the same as unanimity), but we did have consensus and a naming convention before you came in and "caused an uprising" by moving thousands of pages. Your new article titles have not had consensus at any point in time. -- Northenglish 21:19, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: this edit

Needless to say, my quotes are being taken out of context slightly. That being said, SPUI putting this here, where only arbitrators are allowed to edit, rather than the Workshop, is further proof that he has little respect for Wikipedia process. -- Northenglish 00:41, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"After considering /Evidence and discussing proposals with other arbitrators, parties and others at /Workshop place proposals which are ready for voting here."

"After considering /Evidence and discussing proposals with other arbitrators, parties and others at /Workshop place proposals which are ready for voting here."

Hello? --SPUI (T - C) 01:45, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~I've responded to the above comment here. Is one of the arbitrators willing to confirm or deny my interpretation of the rules? -- Northenglish 23:31, 10 June 2006 (UTC)~~[reply]

Never mind, found this on his talk page. -- Northenglish 23:36, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Section: Ambiguous terminology

Going from:

"The usage of the terms "state highway", "state route", etc. may vary from country to country or even from state to state. In the United States, it is not uncommon for the general public to use different conventions even within a particular state." (State highway#Terminology)

to:

"The form of the name of state highways varies from state to state, sometimes different forms are used within a state, even by official agencies"... (Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Highways/Proposed decision#Ambiguous terminology)

seems like a bit of a leap to me. Every highway has an official name and should be titled as such. The general public is liable to call it anything. Alternate names in wide enough use are suitable candidates for redirects. I would recommend striking the underlined portion, unless we can cite evidence to support it, and even then, it should be clarified as to which state(s) we have noted for being wishy-washy in the terminology used by their own "official agencies", otherwise this finding of fact contains an unhealthy dose of original research. — Jun. 9, '06 [14:22] <freak|talk>

Actually we've found instances in many states where his statement is dead on. And there has been ample evidence presented prior that California is one of those states. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 18:41, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where is this evidence? State laws use Route X. Caltrans uses Route X or State Route X, the latter abbreviated SR X. Use of Highway X is on an informal basis only, and only in areas of the state where that is used by locals. --SPUI (T - C) 19:58, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How about all the evidence that's been brought previously that California's government uses both State Route X and California State Route X to refer to its roads? JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 22:25, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is no such evidence. There are 110 results on the Caltrans site for "California State Route", most of which are on one area of their site - the Cal-NExUS reports (which do not even all use that any more - see the first result) - versus 31800 for "state route". --SPUI (T - C) 22:45, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"SPUI shall defer to other users should a dispute arise regarding the name of a highway. This applies to disputes with either individuals or groups of editors."

Bloody hell, now you're framing it as me vs. everyone else. What about all the other people at Talk:State Route 2 (California)? THEY ARE MY SOCKPUPPETS. --SPUI (T - C) 20:03, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if your sock says "Route 2" don't argue. The point is, one system is as good as another. No point in constantly arguing about it. Fred Bauder 23:30, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One system is not as good as another - see my evidence and proposed principle "the effect of an article title". --SPUI (T - C) 23:56, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"If consensus fails to be achieved the standard Requested moves process should be begun, and the results of that process will determine what page names are accepted."

The problem with this is that the original name is arbitrary. State Route 2 (California) is there because it was there when it was listed on RM. If it had been at California State Route 2, it would still be there, as there was no consensus. --SPUI (T - C) 01:02, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I urge everyone to read Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Highways/Workshop#The effect of an article title. --SPUI (T - C) 01:02, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I urge everyone to read SPUI's "effect of an article title" is a fallacy. Although I know I don't have to urge you, because everyone here is going to read everything regarding this case. -- Northenglish 21:13, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification

The term "U.S. highway" is used. Obviously this means a highway in the U.S., not a U.S. Highway. But what is a highway? A numbered highway? Any road? --SPUI (T - C) 03:14, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A main road, as opposed to a byway. Highway is unchanged from Old English. Fred Bauder 23:12, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So if a numbered state highway is actually a one-block alley, the decision doesn't apply, but it does apply to articles like Lincoln Highway? --SPUI (T - C) 15:01, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I see the problem. If something passes we need to consider the ambiguity this language causes. Fred Bauder 20:27, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thoughts

I thought I'd register an opinion here, as unwelcome as it might be, and as irrelevant as the Arbitration Committee might consider it. The fact is, I don't like:

the outcome of this arbitration, which is biased against User:SPUI
the precedent of this arbitration

User:SPUI would, no doubt, be the first to admit that he can act like a complete and utter idiot at times, borderline troll and general irritation. However, he does an invaluable amount of work on Wikipedia, and is a productive editor, whether or not his interaction with other users is as clean as we'd all like. He doesn't suffer fools and he doesn't fuck about when it comes to trying to improve our articles. Call it roadcruft, or call it unencyclopaedic, but it's productive editing.

Now, I see him being treated as if he's in the wrong over a matter which boils down to factual accuracy. Maybe he's wrong, maybe the other party is wrong. It's pretty germane either way, since if the wrong choice is made, then we can undo it, right? Wrong. The current conclusions of this case seem to state that User:SPUI is wrong with respect to the naming of a set of articles, and leaves no scope to acknowledge the converse. It also seems, as I read it, to leave no avenue for his methods to become the "correct" route, should it be later discovered that his naming conventions were more appropriate; he will, I envisage, be shouted down and suppressed. For attempting to improve. I don't like the prospect of that.

This case, of course, hands an editorial decision over to semi-elected group of users who, previously, had no power to make decisions pertaining to content disputes and still should have no power. What this is, to me, is tantamount to telling User:SPUI that his contributions in a particular field were wrong, that user X is correct, and that he should sod off and defer to another. This violates one of our core tenets; while it might not be one of the absolute, immutable policies, consensus and discussion, however prolonged, is how we deal with controversies.

The reason the Committee had, and should still have, no special power to determine the outcome of a content dispute is also linked to their lack of specialisation. As demonstrated with at least one clarification above, User:SPUI has a flair for knowing this sort of stuff, even if he sometimes goes about pushing that flair in people's faces a bit much. The Committee have demonstrated and confessed a lack of knowledge in the field. It shouldn't even think it has the right to force an uninformed opinion in this matter.

So we're not arguing over a bunch of offensive cartoons or a picture of someone's dick on the web. But you still want to bring down the hammer? I'm appalled, and worried for the future direction of the project. robchurch | talk 19:49, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think you've misinterpreted why the arbcom took this case. They seem to have taken it on as a user conduct case and are focusing their attention on the move warring not the content. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 20:39, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh my. Please read the Proposed decision more carefully, as well as the rest of the case. From what I understand from my fellow users, SPUI alone among us feels this is a matter of factual accuracy. The rest of us realize that while "State Route X" is the official name for state highways in most U.S. states, official names are not the only factor to be taken into account when titling articles, and "California State Route X" (for ex.) is an alternative that is not factually inaccurate.

Most of the arbitrators, when they decided they would take this case, stated they would not rule on any issue regarding content or style. As I am reading Proposed decision, it seems to me that they are upholding their promise.

SPUI's contributions were not wrong. The way he went about them was. Proposed decision is careful never to say that one naming convention is correct, and the other is wrong. It does, however, attempt to bring SPUI in line with Wikipedia policy, regardless of which naming convention is eventually chosen. Some of SPUI's contributions are directly against 3RR; more generally he is accused of move warring, failing to seek consensus, and ignoring consensus.

It is true that it takes two (or in this case approximately six) to move war. I'm not sure how the arbitrators feel about the move war, although WP:3RR does say, "In the cases where multiple parties violate the rule, administrators should treat all sides equally." Perhaps it is necessary for Arbcom to sanction Rschen7754, PHenry, and JohnnyBGood (possibly among others) as well for their participation in the move wars. I agree that "SPUI started it" is childish, and while in most cases correct, not a valid defense.

However, while it may seem that the committee is acting unfairly towards SPUI in this case, it is important to remember that life isn't always fair. Regardless of fairness, they are upholding their promise to keep this a procedural issue, rather than content/style. -- Northenglish (talk) -- 20:44, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I still stand my my assertion that reverting his moves was reverting vandalism. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 20:49, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. --SPUI (T - C) 21:16, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How is that a personal attack? When you mass move dozens of pages in the face of multiple editors expressing VERY vocal oppposition without discussing it and insisting that you are "right" and everyone else is "wrong", it IS vandalism and disruption. There is no getting around it. You exhusted WP:FAITH a long time ago per WP:AGF. Your edits were made despite and possible to spite other users and often times your edit summaries bear this out. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 21:30, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Proposed decision is careful never to say that one naming convention is correct, and the other is wrong." What do you call this? --SPUI (T - C) 21:18, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I call that an evenly placed assertion considering the one above it says the exact opposite. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 21:28, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I call it a statement of fact based on WP:D. I've been trying to tell you this for months. -- Northenglish (talk) -- 22:04, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For disambiguating specific topic pages, several options are available:

When there is another word (such as Cheque instead of Check) or more complete name that is equally clear (such as Titan rocket), that should be used.
A disambiguating word or phrase can be added in parentheses. The word or phrase in parentheses should be:
- the generic class that includes the topic (for example, Mercury (element), Seal (mammal)); or
- the subject or context to which the topic applies (for example, Union (set theory), Inflation (economics)).
Rarely, an adjective describing the topic can be used, but it's usually better to rephrase the title to avoid parentheses.

In other words, if you are using an adjective as the disambiguation method, you should try to avoid parentheses. State names are not adjectives. --SPUI (T - C) 22:11, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've been trying to tell you this for months. "When there is a more complete name that is equally clear, that should be used." "Washington State Route X" is a more complete name that is equally clear.

The state name can be used as an adjective. Refer to Adjective#Adjectival use of nouns. -- Northenglish (talk) -- 22:26, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Washington State Route X, like painter Joe Brown, is a "more complete name". But it's not what we bloody do here. I suggest you leave until you realize that.
Same example - anything can be used adjectivally.

I'm serious. You seem unwilling to grasp the way we do disambiguation here on Wikipedia. The door's waiting. --SPUI (T - C) 22:30, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What part of the sentence "When there is a more complete name that is equally clear, that should be used," don't you understand? You seem unwilling to grasp the way we do disambiguation here on Wikipedia. -- Northenglish (talk) -- 22:34, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that, but "Washington State Route X" is not "a more complete name that is equally clear". I say again - get out of here until you understand that. --SPUI (T - C) 22:37, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 128: / Line 128: @@
 ::::::I'm serious. You seem unwilling to grasp the way we do disambiguation here on Wikipedia. The door's waiting. --[[User:SPUI|SPUI]] ([[User talk:SPUI|T]] - [[Special:Contributions/SPUI|C]]) 22:30, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 :::::::What part of the sentence "When there is a more complete name that is equally clear, that should be used," don't you understand?  You seem unwilling to grasp the way we do disambiguation here on Wikipedia. -- [[User:Northenglish|Northenglish]] ([[User talk:Northenglish|talk]]) -- 22:34, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
+::::::::I understand that, but "Washington State Route X" is not "a more complete name that is equally clear". I say again - get out of here until you understand that. --[[User:SPUI|SPUI]] ([[User talk:SPUI|T]] - [[Special:Contributions/SPUI|C]]) 22:37, 13 June 2006 (UTC)