Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-03-12 U.S. Roads

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Mediation

[edit] Request Information

Request made by: Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 21:22, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Where is the issue taking place?

At the California State Highway WikiProject, the New York State route WikiProject, and at I-95 exit list, although the edit wars could easily spread to the entire 2,000+ pages dealing with United States highways.

Who's involved?

• Rschen7754
• Gateman1997
• JohnnyBGood
• SPUI

What's going on?

SPUI is an excellent editor. However, his editing pattern over the last weeks have been worrisome:

• moving all of the articles at "California State Route x" to "State Route x (California)", although he has repeatedly been requested not to do so, and he does not have consensus at WP:NC/NH, the proposed naming conventions for U.S. Roads (WikiProject). This type of massive page moving (of over 100 articles) is beginning to spread to the New York project, and to one page of the Washington project.
• replacing {{routeboxca2}}, a routebox that holds consensus and is agreed upon by the California highway WikiProject linked above, with his own routebox that is less informative ({{Infobox CA Route}}. Revert wars have started when other users have tried to restore the more informative routebox. He tried to TFD the routebox first, but finally resorted to this method of continuous reverting until the other user gives up.
• being unwilling to compromise with I-95 exit list, by first replacing the entire exit list with a redirect and then replacing an entire section with a link. Attempts to compromise on the article talk page have been rejected by him.

What would you like to change about that?

These actions should be reversed as follows:

• considering that these moves were made without consensus, the articles should be moved back to the "California State Route" standard, and also considering that this standard holds majority (if not consensus) at WP:NC/NH.
• considering that {{routeboxca2}} holds consensus within the CA and U.S. roads WikiProject, then it should be used. (I suggest that a year commissioned field be added however to {{routeboxca2}}.
• Personally I'm not as particular with I-95 exit list, but a compromising solution should be found.

If you'd prefer we work discreetly, how can we reach you?

Email from my user page.

Would you be willing to be a mediator yourself, and accept a mediation assignment in a different case?

Probably not in a different casebecause of my limited time and subject expertise.

[edit] Evidence

[edit] Edit wars

* = page moved after Med Cabal was filed.

Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 03:40, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discussions regarding pages moved

Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 03:40, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pages with infoboxes changed

Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 03:40, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discussions regarding pages with infoboxes removed

Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 03:40, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I-95 exit list

Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 03:40, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discussions regarding I-95 exit list

Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 03:40, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Other edit wars

--Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 05:33, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Compromise offers

Alright this is getting Bad. Having looked at the evidence and some of the well written arguments, I've got an idea for compromise. There was no consensus on the pagemoves or the template changes, and while wikipedia is open to anyone, there have got to be guidelines and the community has the right to check what can be seen as destructive. On one hand, SPUI is taking a reductionist viewpoint, consistant with writing a set of briefs to easily send people from route to route. On the other, Rschen is taken the inclusionist approach, that all the info should be included. From the research I have done, I have come up witht 3 possible compromises.

• (My personal preference for fairness) The Parethetical Disambig Option - SPUI gets "his way" and the State Routes are organized via "State Route xx (California)". The more detailed infobox advocated by Rschen stays. All subsequent routes are put this way, and redirects are put in place to aid searching

The Reasoning behind this is based on my research, as the controversy has spread to WA, I looked at the DOT page, they simply refer to State Routes as "SR XX". From this, I can soundly say that the correct name would not be "Washington XX" and therefor SPUI's naming convention is more accurate. Also, on the Talk:State Route 2 (California) page he has a large body of support for the move, with well reasoned arguments. I think that this option is best for both parties as it will make disambig a little easier, and it will keep the articles in the most informative state.

• The Technical Right - On a technicality, SPUI doies not have the 2/3rds supermajority that is needed to move pages, the pages stay as "California State Route XX." Additionally, he does not seem to have the support needed to substitute out infoboxes, so the more detailed box stays.

The Reasoning behind this is the concept of community consensus. One needs consensus to operate in a community environment.

Reason I don't reccomend it, WP:NOT a Democracy. If we can only act by consensus stuff won't happen. It is the encyclopedia "anyone can edit." As such, I feel this option disenfranchises SPUI of his rights as a wikipedian, and would be detrimental to the community

• The Reductionist Approach - SPUI does not have the 2/3rds for the moves, but he does have the right to slim the userboxes.

The Reasoning behind this is that, while major changes like a pagemove need the community to agree, the articles themselves can be changed at will.

Reasoning against (in my opinion), this will reduce the content on the pages, and upset people, leading to possible edit wars on the template. I think this option is probably the worst of the three, as it won't help the situation.

If all parties who want to be involved in this descision could respond below the line, and advocate/amend the proposals I think we can reach consensus. I'm going to talk to SPUI and Rschen and ask them to take a break on editing state route articles until this is worked out. I think a vote by people involved in the project would be in order after the people at the core of this dispute can hammer out a compromise.

Hope we can come to a solution. Your most humble and obedient servant -- Dragoonmac - ^{If there was a problem yo I'll solve it} 03:23, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

You are working from the assumption that shrinking the infobox necessarily removes information from the article. This is not true; that detailed information does not belong in an infobox, which is intended to summarize the topic. The information that is cut (minor junctions and postmiles) can easily be included in a table in the article body. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 03:50, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Point noted, but I am compelled to mention that your infobox contains significantly less information then the current one does. Whether or not that info belongs there is another question entirely. Might it be possible to come to a slimmed down version of the existing box, that you two could collaberate on? -- Dragoonmac - ^{If there was a problem yo I'll solve it} 04:40, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Other than formatting, it appears that the main differences are the junctions and mileposts, and the cities list (for both CA and WA). The year commissioned and length notes parameters have been added to {{routeboxca2}} and {{routeboxwa}}.--Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 04:55, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, mine combines the cities with the junctions and removes the postmiles to make it a decent size. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 05:28, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Except if you look at WT:CASH and WT:WASH people are attached to the junctions thing the way they are currently handled. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 05:44, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

We should be writing articles for the readers. There is no reason to cram as much information as possible into the infobox. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 08:27, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

By the way, you suggest I stop working on state route articles until we're done. Would you feel that, if I were to do some work on a state that I have formerly had dealings with but none of the others have (Florida, Massachusetts, New Jersey and Rhode Island), it would be a bad thing (stalking) for one of them to show up and start reverting me? --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 03:53, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Um, I have had dealings with Washington- if you look I started the project. I wouldn't revert you unless you did mass page moves or mass infobox changes or something controversial. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 03:57, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I know - that's why I didn't include Washington. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 04:01, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Well because Pennsylvania, Illinois, and Texas need some WikiProject setup. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 04:08, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

A concern I have is that what happens at California may determine what happens across the country. In regards to both the naming conventions and the infoboxes. The reductionist approach does not seem appealing if you consider it to be the worst option. Also there are 2,000+ articles on US state highways, and only about 300-400 articles with the long infoboxes SPUI dislikes. Not sure if that's balanced. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 03:57, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I don't consider consensus a technicality—it's one of the guiding principles that make Wikipedia work. To sacrifice consensus to a single editor's somewhat blinkered view of what constitutes "correct" would not only lead to hard feelings but would set a very bad (here comes that word again) precedent for the future.

Additionally, as I've noted elsewhere, "State Route x" is not even correct in Washington—under the law, the "correct" terminology is "State Route Number x." I submit that the relevant guideline here is not "correctness," but the principle of least astonishment: put the article where the average user is most likely to look for it, if possible. It's why Roe v. Wade is an article and the "correct" name, Jane Roe, et al. v. Henry Wade, District Attorney of Dallas County, is a redirect.

Taken together, these would suggest that your second option is the most desirable one, although I would hasten to point out that, over at WP:WASH at least, SPUI is making a commendable effort to discuss and create consensus on the routebox issue, which I predict will lead to a much more harmonious result than the page-move mess has. --phh 14:58, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

You're just trying to confuse the issue - if anything, Washington is clearer than California. The names of the routes, as used by WSDOT, are State Route X, abbreviated SR X. We don't put pages at abbreviations - Interstate 90, not I-90. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 21:52, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comments by others

Moved from talk page: I don't see an obvious place to respond, so I will here.

About the infobox, all I have to say is that if you think the box at State Route 1 (California), especially its old version, is a reasonable length, you should not be making consensus.

The page moves are being done in according with disambiguation standards, as I have already done for Florida, New Jersey and Massachusetts. There is no such thing as "California State Route X". The name is "State Route X".

The exit list is being discussed at Talk:I-95 exit list, and has nothing to do with the rest of the stuff. It is simple elimination of content forks. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 05:57, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

• On the California routebox thing: It sucks. It is just too big and it has found its way into way too many other states. SPUI played a major role in what I think is an excellent job with {{infobox Interstate}}. I haven't really looked too closely at the situation in California itself, but I think his input could be very valuable in improving it, though his tactics seem bold. Bottom line: I'm in favor of shortening those things some way or another.
• I'm not really sure what the I-95 exit list issue is; I never noticed that article until now, but wouldn't that info be better as part of Interstate 95? Well I suppose it could make it too big. Either way, I think the most importat thing is that there aren't duplicates all over the place. Makes maintenance much harder.
• As far as the routes naming thing goes, I'm sort of torn. I'm one of the guys who's been saying New York State Highway 300 for as long as I can remember, really only because that's the way it's been done. That doesn't mean that's the way it has to be. A few of the guys at WP:NYSR like the idea of New York State Route 300, since they say they are called Routes by NYSDOT and not Highways. Fair enough, but I still find myself accidentally putting Highway since I'm so used to it. As for renaming them as Route 300 (New York) or State Route 300 (New York), I seem to dislike them both. NYSR 300 is more a part of the NYSDOT system of numbered routes than it is just some route numbered 300 that happens to be in NY. It's kind of hard to explain, but I think there is a difference between this and something like Interstate 84 (east). Since there is no Eastern Highway System, it is more the Interstate 84 in the east than it is the eastern road Interstate 84. I think the key here really is that NYSDOT officially binds all of these State Routes together in a way much stronger than they are bound with similarly-numbered routes in other states, and the article name should reflect that.

--Chris 20:00, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

• • Since you brought up Interstate 84, I'll use that as an example. By your argument, shouldn't it be "U.S. Interstate X", as it's part of the U.S. system of interstate routes? The only reason we use simply "Interstate X" is that the U.S. is the only country with highways named that. Similarly, if only one state uses, for example, "Farm to Market Road X" (Texas in this case), then we don't need the state to disambiguate. If more than one state does, then we should disambiguate in the standard way - with parentheses. M1 motorway (Northern Ireland) is an example of that. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 22:02, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
    • The Interstate system is an exception. We';re mostly concerned about state highways (well for naming conventions anyway). Also what is a Farm to Market Road to an international user? Nothing. Thus we need Texas in front of it. The Ireland example is irrelevant as that is a totally different naming system. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 22:07, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
      • What is Interstate 5 to an international user? Nothing. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 22:15, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
        • It refers to a specific highway system. A generic "State Route" does not. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 22:28, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
          • It refers to any system of highways that goes in multiple states. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 23:55, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
            • Except it's List of Interstate Highways indicating that it's a specific system. Who calls it U.S. Interstate 5? Who would type that into the search field to be specific? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 00:02, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
              • Who calls it "Massachusetts Route 9"? Certainly not a local or the DOT. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 00:41, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
                • But who calls it "Route 9 (Massachusetts)"? But noone would just type "Route 9" into the search field. Also the point of this MC was so that we can agree to not move pages and do drastic stuff like that without discussion and agreement. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 00:48, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
                  • Have a look at Wikipedia:Disambiguation and an example like John Brown. Read them over until you understand the parenthetical method of disambiguation. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 01:49, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
                    • It doesn't work for highways though. How many times do I (and others) have to say this? Also a quote from the page you cited: "When there is no risk of confusion, do not disambiguate nor add a link to a disambiguation page." Who would confuse California State Route 15 with Maine State Route 15? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 01:53, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
                      • Your response makes no sense to me - you seem to completely misunderstand the idea of disambiguation. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 02:40, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
                        • I am aware of what disambiguation is. Specifically, disambiguation is needed where there are two topics (i.e. mercury the element, planet, etc) that can be confused. Who would confuse California State Route 15 with Maine State Route 15? Thus no disambiguation is needed, and therefore we use the state name at the front. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 02:46, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
                          • Who would confuse a planet with an element? Why not put the articles at "planet Mercury" and "element mercury"? Because that is not how disambiguation works. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 02:55, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
                            • Except here the planet and element use the same name. California State Route 15 and Maine State Route 15 do not. Also, if we did use State Route 15 (California) and State Route 15 (Maine), that implies that it's one highway system that manages all of the State Routes nationwide. You may laugh but an international reader could assume that. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 02:59, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
                              • You are correct that California's and Maine's highways numbered 15 do not use the same name, but for a different reason - California's is State Route 15 while Maine's is Route 15. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 04:48, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
                                • Okay fine then- California State Route 15 and Arizona State Route 15. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 04:52, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
                                  • They are both named State Route 15 (if there was a State Route 15 in Arizona). --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 04:57, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
                                    • No, the reason that Caltrans doesn't use "California State Route 15" is because they're lazy and don't want to type "California" out when it is understood. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 05:05, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
                                      • Original research and incorrect, all in one. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 06:18, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

(moved back to left) Common sense, how about? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 06:22, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, common sense. It's on my side. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 06:34, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

SPUI, could you explain two things to me here. 1) Define how the I-95 Exit List is a fork, and 2) how is common sense on your side. My common sense, as well as Rschen7754's (I would suppose, I'm not putting words in his mouth), is to type in "Virginia State Route 7" or "California State Route 1." Just like if I wanted "United States Route 29" or "Ontario Provincial Highway 400." That's what they're called. I'm from the Washington DC region, there are two Route 28's that are on the traffic reports: Maryland State Route 28, and Virginia State Route 28 (usually just Maryland 28 and Virginia 28), which is what EVERYONE calls them. I am in North Carolina right now, and North Carolina State Route 87 takes me to US 29. --MPD01605 06:44, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I-95 exit list had exit lists for several states that already had exit lists in articles like Interstate 95 in New Jersey. The duplication of content is a fork. And if you type in California State Route 15, you are redirected to the correct name. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 07:24, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't WP:FORK actually refer to POV forks? I see no POV in an objective list of highway exits that have no POV. Just a thought. I got to do a fair amount of reading during my block and there is nothing on WP:FORK that pretains to non-POV forks. Just POV pushing ones which these definitely aren't. Also to prevent even the non-POV fork wouldn't it be more logical to put the exits all on one list rather then spread among various Interstate 95 is XX State articles and the exit list page?JohnnyBGood 17:59, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes I know. Also, that is my interpretation of common sense. Why do we need the confusing setup of "State Route 234 (California)"? Or SPUI's suggested "State Highway Route 234 (California) for that matter (Talk:List of State Highway Routes in California)? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 04:04, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Fixed link since I got confused... --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 04:05, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting State Highway Route X. All numbered state highways are officially State Highway Route X, but even the laws often use just Route X. Those Routes that are not Interstates or U.S. Routes are State Route X. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 04:07, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

And proof is where? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 04:13, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

In the Streets and Highways Code, and in Caltrans usage for "State Route X". --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 04:16, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Dont wish to interupt but I have to take Rschen7754 side in the sense that SPUI should not continue to do such drastic changes to articles, when there is clearly opposition to him doing so. Tutmosis 21:21, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Thus the other side should also not do "such drastic changes", as there is clearly opposition to their edits too. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 13:43, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

What drastic changes are you referring to? Everyone else seems to support maintaining the status quo on significant matters until and unless a consensus emerges to change it. --phh 17:25, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

As I said before, if the SR 1 infobox is acceptable to you, please don't help make consensus. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 01:20, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Drastic changes? Such as what, exactly? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 02:19, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

Seems to me the issue to be discussed here is not what a template should look like or what the articles should be named, but users' unwillingness to accept the large majority opinions already expressed & voted upon. Deciding to ignore everyone else because one's own idea is different is definitely against wikipedia culture & policy. Elf | Talk 18:11, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

True. We've already had consensus discussions on this and SPUI is refusing to abide by the consensus that was reached... JohnnyBGood 19:25, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. SPUI and Rschen are rehashing the same sides already discussed elsewhere. What the sides are is not the issue here, altho it is the root cause. The issue is do the editors need to follow consensus when naming (and moving) pages or should they decide that they are correct regardless of what other editors have discussed. If the latter, then it would be OK for me to move all the CA road pages to "Road CA X" if I think I am right, regardless of what other editors on the project have said (this particular example I think revolts everyone involved just to make my point). From my understanding of how WP is supposed to work, consensus building WP:CON overrules one rogue editor's version of what is right. If SPUI is convinced that he is correct, then he should be convincing others to move in that direction, and failing that, going along with the consensus no matter how painful. Going ahead with a multitude of page moves while the matter was still under debate, especially when the voting was leaning against his approach, was the cause of the problem. His blatant disregard for concensus in his discussions with other editors and several ad hominem attacks have just added fuel to the fire. --Censorwolf 20:28, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not going to defend SPUI's actions, but supposed "consensus" cited in the discussions linked on this page with regards to routebox changes is fairly weak. There are several instances of users, mainly those who are not involved in the California State Highway WP, expressing concerns similar to SPUI's about the design and content of the routebox. SPUI's (and others) suggestions have been almost universally rebuffed before change had even been made, or reverted by the same people who have opened this, and the above linked discussions also show that SPUI made concessions and proposals for compromise that were also ignored. I would offer the suggestion that instead of quelling discussion, perhaps we (or SPUI) should have placed notices on the highway pages inviting discussion on routebox changes to establish a more solid consensus. I believe what is passing for consensus now is nothing more than groupthink. SPUI's actions may be erratic, but the precipice that provoked him has been ignored. It should be addressed to avoid encouraging other editors to behave the same way. Joydawg 21:22, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Weak it may be, but it's still consensus. It's his job to get the 66% needed to support the page moves. Otherwise they stay where they are. He's not done this and gone ahead and moved pages anyway.JohnnyBGood 22:08, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Also, it's the lack of consensus on SPUI's side that has me annoyed more rather... --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 02:21, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I recommend just flipping a coin and getting it over with. — Rickyrab | Talk 16:57, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

There are at least two separate issues:

• Routebox
• Page moves based on disambiguation

Consensus building was not done on either even tho the items were in dispute. If SPUI was solo on the roads project then the routebox changes and moves would have been OK. He does have valid points on both issues; in fact I supported the disambiguation naming at first until I realized it did not have consensus. The lack of cooperation is the main problem now which has led to this step. --Censorwolf 13:50, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mediator response

Right. I've been assigned this case to mediate, and I'm now silently weeping, there are, like, 47 articles involved in this thing. I'm inclined to agree with User:SPUI, in that his disambigs for state routes make a lot of sense (as someone whos lived all across the 48). But, he did act without consensus, which is widely regarded as bad, dumb, and disruptive. Now, as a mediator, I have no opinion and no authourity (and also no sense of spelling as it took me 4 attempts to spell that). I can, however, informally encourage a consensus. So, the people involved according to the list are

• User:Rschen7754
• User:Gateman1997
• User:JohnnyBGood
• User:SPUI

If the parties involved could each, below this post, state why they're involved, and their reasoning for their actions it would really help me to figure out some sort of compromise.

I know there has already been a lot said, and yes I have read (almost) all of it (forgive the almost, but there's like a mile of debate up there), and will read it again on Sunday when I'm less tired (it's currently 4 AM PST). Until then this case is officially In Mediation by Dragoonmac. If you would like to speak to me in private, I respond to my talk page, or if true privacy is required, I can be emailed through wikipedia, or by manually entering the info on my userpage (you will have to manually remove the spamblock on the address (it's pretty obvious)) into your favourite email client.

Til Sunday I remain all of your most humble and obedient servant -- Dragoonmac - ^{If there was a problem yo I'll solve it} 12:07, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Well basically... I've been working at the CASR WP for about a year now. There's been naming disputes ever since I've been here but never on this scale before. In regards to the current naming dispute, I strongly prefer the conventions "California State Route x" and similar conventions. However, what is more upsetting is that SPUI has been moving pages without consensus, while we were having a discussion regarding this at WP:NC/NH. It would be another thing if that page generated consensus for the "State Route x (California)" naming standard, but that has not happened. Therefore, I have been reverting some of SPUI's page moves so that the pages can stay put until a definite consensus has been formed.

The other issue here is the routebox issue. Much work has been invested in over 200 routeboxes using the {{routeboxca2}} standard. In fact, other states have used this routebox and adapted it for their own WikiProject (WA, NY, TX to name a few). However, SPUI decided that the CASR WP was not going to use long infoboxes on his own accord. He made major changes to the routebox without consensus, and began a revert war after he was reverted. After this, he proceeded to TFD the {{routeboxca2}} (which failed) and start his own {{Infobox CA Route}} which is not as informative. He has been reverted many times when he has tried to convert dozens of pages to his new standard and he reverts back.

In my personal opinion I am more concerned about the infoboxes as long as the California State Routes are at the same naming convention. In other words, if the standard is set at "California State Route x", then we can't have California State Highway 17 (as we did for an entire year). But the more informative infobox needs to stay. It could be modified per suggestions at WT:CASH (moving the browse state highways and limiting cities were suggested there). --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 21:20, 25 March 2006 (UTC)`

My arguments for the naming are on Talk:State Route 2 (California). You seem to understand those reasons, so I won't go into them. Rschen7754 in particular keeps stating that "California State Route X" is the official name despite having no sources to back him up.

As for the routebox, I look at [1] and my brain cries in pain. Infoboxes are not supposed to be that long; the detailed information in there should be in the article text. I've recently done a similar shrinking with {{infobox Interstate}} and {{infobox U.S. Route}} with general success; that was a very similar situation. On February 8, I decided to expand and rewrite the State Route 15 article, generally expanding and improving it, as I had recently been looking at that area on maps. I removed the infobox, as everything in the infobox was now in the article text. I was reverted for no real reason (not only the removal of the infobox but also the total rewrite), and the war was on. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 22:02, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

If I recall correctly, we slimmed that routebox on CA-1 down (before you switched the format entirely). And there was no significant consensus against your infobox fixes for the Interstate and U.S. Highway WikiProjects. There is for California since it is a state highway WikiProject that goes into more details. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 22:10, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I linked to your "slimmed" infobox. It's still too big. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 22:13, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. And we made a good faith effort to reduce it by at least half. Also there is no guideline on an infobox's length.Gateman1997 20:59, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not a named party in this disagreement, but I would like to add a few points here. Wikipedia has a long tradition of stare decisis that, in controversial situations like this one, puts the burden of proof on the party or parties who advocate a departure from the status quo. This respect for precedent is a vital principle that underlies Wikipedia's consensus-building method of operation; indeed, without it it is difficult to see how Wikipedia could operate at all. This is not to say that change cannot be good, or that excessive barriers should be erected to prevent it. But the basic rule is clear enough: if you want to change something significant, you first gain consensus and then make the change. The more significant the prospective change, the more important it is to get consensus, and the clearer the consensus should be.

Without regard to the merit of SPUI's controversial positions—for the record, I tend to think he's wrong about the article names and right about the routeboxes—he has unilaterally sought to impose them on hundreds of articles, without seeking consensus, and has revert warred with people who have disagreed with this decsion. I don't wish to spend a ton of time here arguing about SPUI's behavior, at least not now. Rather, I feel it's important to point out that the burden of proof, for those who are concerned with such things, lies with SPUI. Prior to March 8, all of these articles were named using the format "California State Route xx." It is because of SPUI, and him alone, that any of them are not still located under those preexisting names. SPUI may argue that no consensus was sought when these articles were first created, in the mists of Wikipedia history, but of course that is how precedents originate: the first person to create an article makes certain decisions about how it should be; the next person to edit that article, or to create a companion article, tends to either follow the conventions the first editor established or make minor modifications to them; it snowballs as more people come along and more articles are created; and then someone creates a WikiProject that basically just codifies the traditions that have organically evolved over the past several months or years. That's the essence of common law, which I believe has a great deal of relevance to the way Wikipedia runs.

Someone coming to this imbroglio anew may not understand why some articles are named one way and other articles are named another way, and may incorrectly assume that they evolved this way "naturally"; perversely, some well-meaning contributors may assume that stare decisis favors SPUI and support moving all the articles to his unilateral naming scheme (as I believe probably happened here). Ideally, all of these articles should be returned to their original names before any consensus can honestly be sought. Even if that doesn't happen, one thing needs to be agreed upon: "California State Route xx" must properly be considered the status quo, which means that if no consensus emerges through this process, all affected articles must be immediately restored to this format. To do otherwise would be to reward bad behavior, and send the message that if you want to change something, all you have to do is be obnoxious about it for long enough to wear down everyone else. --phh 21:02, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Wow. Definitely agreed. Supposing that we let SPUI get his way here, where will it end? Where will the appeasement end? Because look at the next heading... --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 21:11, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if i'm allowed to make comments in here, but also it was spui who developed the "status quo" convention in the first place. He made calif. state route xx as a way to unify all the california articles, which showed no convention before it. Now, he's trying to unify all of the state route articles in the US; except now there are 50x more people than there was when he initially developed the CA Route XX notation, so there is another possible source for all the controversy now. atanamir 22:31, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Acutally, I remember now -- CA/17's debate started when spui first moved verything to the "california state route XX" convention, a notation which everyone now accepts. atanamir 22:33, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] It's spreading to Washington!

Yes it is. Look at List of Washington State Routes, which links to the new redirects that SPUI has created. Look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Washington State Highways/Completion list, which SPUI has created to serve for his own benefit for his page move campaign. Look at my talk page, where SPUI shows determination to move all of the Washington and eventually all 2,000 of the U.S. Roads pages. Where will it end? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 21:11, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

RFC time IMHO. Mediation isn't going to work. And PHH brings up a VERY good point.Gateman1997 21:26, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] It's spreading to Washington part 2!

Yes it is. There's Template:Infobox WA State Route, which presumably is the template that SPUI has suddenly decided will be the new infobox. Of course there's no discussion, no consensus, etc. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 01:09, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] It's spreading to Florida! and Massachusetts! and New Jersey!

Oh wait, those were already moved a while ago. Anyone care to move them back to the wrong names? --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 22:36, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Well noone cared since there are no other major contributors for those states. But there are for CA, WA, etc. --22:57, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Wrong. He pulled the switch in the middle of the night, without even attempting a consensus regarding the Florida State Roads. The only reason I didn't say anything was that I was wrapping up my writing for the day and I had to prepare for a 16-hour workday that started in only a few hours. The move was arbitrary, as was his disruptiveness regarding his getting useful redirects speedied without a valid criterion. Regarding "There are no other major contributors for Florida," I'll stack my list of created articles up against whatever the criteria the previous poster/editor had in mind. The odds are - excluding redirects - that I have initiated more Florida State Roads articles than SPUI (with much more to come by the end of April). B.Wind 20:55, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

My apologies... since I don't directly work with these projects I didn't know. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 01:24, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Requesting Update

This case has not been updated since April 7. I will be closing this case and moving it to the archives if no update is given and/or there are no objections. Cowman109^Talk 23:27, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Case closed

This case has been closed due to inactivity. Should mediation still be required, a new request for mediation should be filed. The listing of this case has been moved to the archives. Cowman109^Talk 19:42, 14 May 2006 (UTC)