Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 20:47, 8 June 2006

This is a page for working on Arbitration decisions. It provides for suggestions by Arbitrators and other users and for comment by arbitrators, the parties and others. After the analysis of /Evidence here and development of proposed principles, findings of fact, and remedies. Anyone who edits should sign all suggestions and comments. Arbitrators will place proposed items they have confidence in on /Proposed decision.

Motions and requests by the parties

Other involved parties

1) The following users are named as additional involved parties:

User:Nohat, see U.S. Route 101
User:Gateman1997, see WP:RFC/SPUI.
User:Lbmixpro, see move log.
User:Locke Cole (if he's around), see move log.

— Jun. 2, '06 [00:49] <freak|talk>

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Agreed. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 22:51, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Highways. — Jun. 3, '06 [03:05] <freak|talk>

For the record I'd rather not be involved in this arbcom thanks. I excused myself from this debate and conceded to SPUI over two months ago on his talk page and via email. I'm finally enjoying Wikipedia again writing articles and such and would like to keep it that way if it's all the same to everyone. I no longer care what names the highways end up at. Gateman1997 05:25, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agree for User:Nohat as he's been in the thick of it from day one, especially on Route 17. Disagree for the other three users as all three appear to have lost interest before it became a full on war particularly User:Locke Cole who appears to have left Wikipedia completely. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 00:19, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Scope of this case

1) The Arbitration Committee shall clarify the scope of this arbitration case, to wit, whether the committee shall make rulings in this case with regards (a) to conduct of Wikipedia editors, (b) naming conventions of Wikipedia articles relating to numbered highways in the United States, (c) content of such articles, or (d) some combination of a, b, and c.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I sense that all involved parties would like to know, early on, which direction this is going. — Jun. 5, '06 [07:29] <freak|talk>

Comment by others:

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed temporary injunctions

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed final decision

Proposed principles

The effect of an article title

1) An article title (minus parenthetical disambiguation) is usually what is bolded at the beginning of an article and what is linked to from other articles. Using the wrong title can result in stilted and redundant sentences like (hypothetical example) "Washington State Route 78 runs from Washington State Route 56 north past Washington State Route 327 to end at Washington State Route 45."

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Setting aside any disambiguation conventions, we should avoid writing "Washington State Route X" in text when that is not the common or official name and the context is established ("is a state highway in the U.S. state of Washington"). I believe this to be the core problem - improper naming encourages sloppy text. --SPUI (T - C) 18:37, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This makes sense, if the proper name of the subject is "A", but "A" is non-unique, the title should be [[A (B)]], and the article ought to start with something similar to "'''A''' is a [whatever] in [[B]], located near [[A2 (B)|A2]] and [[A3 (B)|A3]]...". The identity of B, in this case a geographical entity, is already established for the context of this hypothetical article. — Jun. 2, '06 [00:12] <freak|talk>

Per clarification by Jdforrester here, content matters such as this one are not in scope for this arbitration case, and the ArbCom is likely to ignore them. —phh (^t/_c) 17:45, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If content isn't why we're here, then WHY are we here? JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 00:16, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Process is important

1) Process is important. Editors are not entitled to ignore the need to obtain consensus for a large-scale, potentially controversial change simply because they believe they are "right" and anyone who disagrees is therefore "wrong."

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I would hope that this is self-evident. —phh (^t/_c) 06:56, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Self-evident" is an interesting choice of words. Are you implying that if arbcom says "there shall be no further life, liberty, and persuit of happiness without due process", you'd still stick around? — Jun. 2, '06 [09:36] <freak|talk>

I'll count on you to keep me up to date on any such mind-blowingly unlikely happenings. —phh (^t/_c) 17:55, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Editing guidelines

1) Be bold in updating pages, ignore all rules, and, above all, use common sense.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

This could benefit from expansion, please be bold and do so. — Jun. 2, '06 [09:29] <freak|talk>

The Be bold page explicitly cautions against obstinately bulling ahead with large-scale changes in the face of obvious controversy. —phh (^t/_c) 17:53, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Wikipedia works by building consensus

1) All editors should seek change through polite discussion and negotiation, and assume good faith until given a reason to do otherwise. In the absence of a consensus that an existing convention (formal or informal) should be changed, all editors should respect the status quo until such a consensus is evident.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Boo-yah. —phh (^t/_c) 01:01, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I hope this isn't your approach to spelling errors as well. — Jun. 8, '06 [02:16] <freak|talk>

This is not in any way, shape, or form a case where one proposal is correct and one is incorrect. Both "State Route X" (with parenthetical disambiguation if necessary) and "Statename State Route X" (which can be considered a form of disambiguation) can be considered equally correct. The question is how do we apply existing naming and disambiguation conventions, such as--but certainly not limited to--common names and more complete names. But to answer your question, correcting spelling errors tends to have consensus. -- Northenglish 02:36, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Both "State Route X" (with parenthetical disambiguation if necessary) and "Statename State Route X" (which can be considered a form of disambiguation) can be considered equally correct." This is totally wrong, and your failure to realize that is the problem here. --SPUI (T - C) 14:10, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Disambiguation and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names) beg to differ with you. —phh (^t/_c) 16:45, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I beg to differ. The "problem" here is your failure to realize two things. (1) The more complete names convention at WP:D does exist. (2) Wikipedia is a global encyclopedia, so we need to use the common name globally, not the name that's common within (for ex.) Washington state. -- Northenglish 18:25, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Freakofnurture admits that "California State Route X" is a valid, more complete name (note the end of his post) -- Northenglish 20:47, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Use of the "poor man's page protection" is a bannable offense

1) Frivolously editing a trailing redirect to prevent one's page moves from being reverted can result in a ban from the arbitration committee.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

From Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/AndriyK#Remedies:

2) AndriyK is banned for one month from Wikipedia for creating irreversible page moves.

Passed 7-0, 04:19, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

This remedy appears to be targeted specifically toward this offense, rather than the sum of the user's conduct. — Jun. 2, '06 [02:13] <freak|talk>

Comment by others:

The necessity of a vote at Wikipedia:Requested moves

5) Moved pages which have become irreversible by adding to the page history of the redirect page may be moved back without the necessity of a vote at Wikipedia:Requested moves.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Copied verbatim from Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/AndriyK#Remedies (passed 7-0, 04:19, 27 January 2006 (UTC)). — Jun. 2, '06 [02:23] <freak|talk>

Comment by others:

Highway nomenclature in the state of Washington

1) The Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) has confirmed that the proper name for roads maintained by that agency is in fact "State Route XX", not "Washington State Route XX"".

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

As confirmed by WSDOT's Kimberly Colburn mailto:hqcustomerservice@wsdot.wa.gov. — Jun. 2, '06 [01:51] <freak|talk>

Honestly, a single email should not be taken as proof alone, as people are fallible. But there is a preponderance of evidence that WSDOT does in fact use State Route X. --SPUI (T - C) 02:41, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Per clarification by Jdforrester here, content matters such as this one are not in scope for this arbitration case, and the ArbCom is likely to ignore them. —phh (^t/_c) 17:44, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You may ultimately be correct on this, but that opinion is not unanimously held by the arbitrators agreeing to accept this case. Fred Bauder's comment: "Accept for the purpose of binding arbitration regarding the style issue". I would like to keep this information easily accessible in preparation for the event that the committee does decide to go that route. If they explicitly state that "We, the arbitration committee, have decided not to deal with content issues in this case", closing the door on the relevance of this information, I will remove this item myself. I think it would be beneficial to all parties if that question is resolved early on. — Jun. 5, '06 [07:22] <freak|talk>

Comment by others: