Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Highways/Proposed decision

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Disagreement with proposed injunction

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

  1. 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
  2. 07:30, 7 June 2006 SPUI moved Washington Boulevard to Washington Boulevard (Los Angeles) (dab) - simple disambiguation of a local street
  3. 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
  4. 20:12, 3 June 2006 SPUI moved Airport Expressway to Airport Expressway (Beijing) (dab) - another disambiguation
  5. 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
  6. 08:22, 25 May 2006 SPUI moved Alphabet Loop to Downtown freeway loop (Kansas City) (real name) - "Alphabet Loop" is a neologism
  7. 05:23, 11 May 2006 SPUI moved Old Spanish Trail to Old Spanish Trail (trade route) (dab) - another disambiguation
  8. 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)

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)

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)
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)

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)

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)
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)
Yeah, it is bad - Rschen7754 revert-warring to keep his bloated infobox in. --SPUI (T - C) 23:37, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Wait... what infobox? Oh yeah- the one that is consensus based? WT:CASH --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 23:41, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
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)
Sweet. Argument is made for me. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 23:45, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
I take it you agree then? That you edit war to provide an inferior product? --SPUI (T - C) 23:50, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
No... that you're unwilling to listen to consensus. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 23:52, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
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)
POV. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 23:55, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
We make "POV" editing decisions every day. Please stop with the non sequiturs. --SPUI (T - C) 23:57, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Oh boy. Wait... am I on Wikipedia? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 23:58, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
No, you're on goatse.cx. --SPUI (T - C) 00:00, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
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)
The maturity level here is astounding. -- Northenglish 02:53, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Ayup. XD — Rickyrab | Talk 18:54, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
(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)
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)
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)

[edit] 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)

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

[edit] 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)
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)
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)
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)

[edit] "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)

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)
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)

[edit] "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)

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)

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)

[edit] 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)

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

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)

[edit] 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)

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)
Yeah. And it takes more than one person to move war. So why the fuck weren't the Committee punishing both sides equally? Fortunately, now, User:Dmcdevit has made some proposals I do agree with. I don't dispute that User:SPUI participated in a move war. I dispute that he did it in bad faith, that he's wrong, and that this means he should be punished on his own for it.
Fred's statements were "arbitrary"? I don't think so. But I won't start shouting Cabal. It demonstrates that the Committee should be more careful about the implications of their statements, including those which aren't passed as a resolution. robchurch | talk 12:02, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
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)
I still stand my my assertion that reverting his moves was reverting vandalism. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 20:49, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for that. --SPUI (T - C) 21:16, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
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)
I haven't been following this case very closely, but I don't think it's totally accurate to call what SPUI did "vandalism". I think that's really down to semantics, though... Linuxbeak (AAAA!) 22:42, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Clarification. If what SPUI did was in good faith, then it's not fair to call what he did "vandalism". Vandalism is deliberate and destructive. Linuxbeak (AAAA!) 22:50, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
"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)
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)
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)
For disambiguating specific topic pages, several options are available:
  1. 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.
  2. A disambiguating word or phrase can be added in parentheses. The word or phrase in parentheses should be:
  3. 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)
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)
  1. 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.
  2. 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)
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)
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)
What makes it less complete or unclear? -- Northenglish (talk) -- 22:43, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
What makes it more so? robchurch | talk 23:20, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
What makes it more complete? Why, the inclusion of the word "Washington", of course. -- Northenglish (talk) -- 07:15, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
The word "United States" would make it even more complete. --SPUI (T - C) 18:01, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Ah, but who calls it "Washington United States State Route X"? Who calls your painter example "painter Joe Brown"? They are more complete descriptions, but they are not more complete names. People do call it "Washington State Route X". -- Northenglish (talk) -- 18:17, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Who calls it "Washington State Route X"? Not as many as you think. (for comparison) --SPUI (T - C) 18:22, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
And here's probably the best counterexample: Georgia (U.S. state) rather than State of Georgia. --SPUI (T - C) 18:25, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
How is that a counterexample? Who calls it "State of Georgia"? Who calls it simply "State Route X" outside the state of Washington?
How many of these search results are actually about a state route in the state of Washington?
We've been through this before. The National Park Service and the Fish and Wildlife Service both call it Washington State Route 4. -- Northenglish (talk) -- 22:55, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
  1. Have a look at the source of http://www.georgia.gov/ - content="Welcome to georgia.gov, the State of Georgia's official website. For online access to Georgia government." And I call it State Route X.
  2. Many more than one.
  3. Disambiguation methods. You still don't understand this. And here's the FHWA using "State Route 509". Here they use "State Route 520". For any "proof" you provide, I will punch holes in it.
--SPUI (T - C) 23:34, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Any proof you provide, I will punch holes in it. Your Georgia citation is irrelevant. The source code uses "State of Georgia", but the phrase appears nowhere on the page itself. Official names mean very little on Wikipedia. It's at New York City, not City of New York. Official names are good starting points, but far from the only factor used when determining a title. The other reason "State of Georgia" should not be used is because "state" can also mean an independent nation, thus could also describe Georgia (country).
I do not have time to look through all 303 of the Google News search results, but looking through the first 50, there are exactly 2 that are from sources outside Washington and are talking about Washington state routes. One is the Idaho newspaper that uses "Washington State Route" [1], the other is an Oregon source in an article titled "Washington state briefs" [2]. I have already punched holes in your Google tests in here.
The fact that FHWA calls them "State Route X" does not change the fact that the NPS and Fish & Wildlife call them "Washington State Route X". FHWA also uses California State Route 99. -- Northenglish (talk) -- 06:41, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
No shit - I think we agree here that different people use different conventions. So let's go with the one that makes linking easiest. What is your problem with that? --SPUI (T - C) 08:44, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Heck, many people just call it "the road to X" or "the highway", just like they call any other highway. — Rickyrab | Talk 19:00, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
I don't have a problem with it, but I would prefer going with the one that makes searching easiest. Wikipedia exists for the users. -- Northenglish (talk) -- 20:20, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

The section above alone shows how pointless it is for the Committee to resolve a content dispute through enforcing "X is right and Y is wrong". robchurch | talk 11:57, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

At the beginning of this thread Robchurch posted "[SPUI] doesn't suffer fools and he doesn't fuck about" It is not whether he is right or wrong, if such a characteristic can be rationally applied to most of the disputes. It is a propensity to wrangle when confronted with a dispute. Fred Bauder 12:40, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

A propensity everybody has. You still decided to pick one content form over another. At what point did Sir Jimbo decide to grant content control to the arbitrators? robchurch | talk 16:02, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Why not a compromise solution between SPUI and his opponents? Pick something that generally makes sense, yet falls somewhere in between the opponents' positions. Moreover, yes, it DOES take more than one to make an edit war. — Rickyrab | Talk 19:04, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Allegedly a fact

Should we be accepting a finding of fact with "allegedly" in it? - brenneman {L} 02:09, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Does seem a little pointless, doesn't it? —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 02:32, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Take the allegedly out and it makes perfect sense. I'm assuming they'll do so if it passes as it will then have been proven. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 18:43, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Uh... no. The thing they're voting on includes the word "allegedly". --SPUI (T - C) 23:34, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
While I disagreed with the scope of that proposal, the purpose of that finding was to establish the dispute. That is what SPUI's opponents allege and it is why we have this arbitration. Other findings may or may not determine that arbcom agrees with them, but it is still useful to have a statement of the dispute nonetheless. Dmcdevit·t 07:22, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Then wouldn't it make sense to put it to the workshop page until "allegedly" removed? Can it be that hard to get agreement on what is being argued about? - brenneman {L} 06:09, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Recent additions

I agree wholeheartedly with many of the proposals recently added by Dmcdevit, particularly Controversial moves. Well before I had read this, I proposed the same on WP:WASH, even though in the vast majority of cases, this would work against my preferred naming convention. -- Northenglish (talk) -- 07:03, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Probation

If I am to be included in any probationary measures, I request that any arbitrators who vote for such a remedy explain what, if any, evidence has been presented against me that influenced their decision. Even after I made a specific request for evidence of any bad acts I've committed,[3] the only time I've even mentioned on the Evidence or Workshop pages is one instance in which I characterized SPUI's page moves as being akin to vandalism,[4] a characterization I subsequently retracted after reviewing the relevant policy.[5] Other than that, no one has presented any evidence against me at all.

My position is that I have responded to SPUI's page moves every time by seeking advice and assistance at WP:AN/I, rather than by reflexively warring with him; have only reverted SPUI's moves on a small number of occasions after being confronted with clear and convincing evidence of overwhelming administrator indifference to any such moves; and that I stopped moving pages entirely after an admin asked me to disengage from the move war as a unilateral gesture of conciliation. I can provide diffs to prove all of these things on request. —phh (t/c) 20:12, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Block length

Is there a reason the minimum block is so high? --SPUI (T - C) 09:39, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

One week maximum is normal for Probation violations.
James F. (talk) 15:57, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm talking abut the one year minimum sentence. Given the esoteric nature of the subject, it can be easy to mischaracterize reasonable actions as violations. --SPUI (T - C) 16:56, 17 June 2006 (UTC)


I'm pretty sure that was a typo. The normal enforcement escalation clause is to increase the maximum block period to one year. I've edited it. --Tony Sidaway 17:21, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Hmm. Still seems excessive, but indefinite blocks have been given without the ArbCom's approval for "disruption", so it doesn't really change anything from the status quo. --SPUI (T - C) 17:58, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
High value editors don't get indefinitely blocked for disruption. --Tony Sidaway 18:09, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Highways/Proposed decision#... is discouraged liek whut?

Regarding parenthetical disambiguation: "but their use is often discouraged, as a great many find them an ugly intrusion." This is a personal opinion with a handful of weasel words, and hardly representative of actual disambiguation guidelines/practices. I've requested that this be modified to resemble reality, or better yet, removed, but was not taken seriously, I'm afraid (User talk:Jdforrester#"a great many find them an ugly intrusion"). — Jun. 19, '06 [17:04] <freak|talk>

After much thought, I have to agree of Freakofnurture here. I haven't seen anything on any policy page, or even a non-policy page, stating that parentheses are discouraged. I would rather support the main Use of parenthesis for disambiguation principle, keeping in mind that it states "their use is not a required method". -- Northenglish (talk) -- 20:03, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Controversial moves, controversial edits?

I strongly would like to see the "controversial moves" proposal expanded to include controversial edits. This edit by SPUI and this one by Freakofnurture represent them continuing to enforce their non-consensus naming convention. This dispute goes beyond simply the page moves; edits like this (albeit on a larger scale) were why List of Washington State Routes was protected for two months. -- Northenglish (talk) -- 20:15, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Between "controversial edits" and "incomplete work", there exists a perfect nothing. — Jun. 19, '06 [20:40] <freak|talk>
The edit I cited involves SPUI changing the text on Washington State Route 168 from "Washington State Route 168" to "State Route 168". This has nothing to do with incomplete work, nor does your edit of List of Washington State Routes. There is nothing wrong with changing the text on articles that are in fact located at State Route X (Washington). -- Northenglish (talk) -- 19:53, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
I would also like to see edits added to the proposal. Edits have been just as disruptive. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 16:30, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Arbitrary decisions

I have to say I'm a little bit concerned about these proposed principles. I can even leave aside for a moment any potential problems with this being interpreted as allowing "make-up-rules-as-you-go-along" as well as any potential problems with those who can enforce the new made up rules. The real problem is that we are almost always on the side os status quo and this undermines that. We shouldn't make changes without a reason, but when we do in principle we have to stick to the changes? - brenneman {L} 06:23, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Maybe ArbCom decisions should try to establish common law for use in future ArbCom decisions. OTOH, statute law rulings are probably easier to do. — Rickyrab | Talk 13:25, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
We explicitly do not take our own decisions as precedent, because sometimes we royally screw things up. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 06:16, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Hm. It's more a philosophical point. This isn't "hey, everyone, just go around making things up at your whim". It's recognition that sometimes there are long, protracted debates where the project and all participants would be best served by making a decision, *any* reasonable decision, and sticking to it. I think this is one of those cases. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 06:16, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
The best example of an arbitrary decision is: Do we have colour or color? While in this case it is usually relatively easy to figure out what each state calls its highways, there are, especially in the popular language used within a state, a number of alternatives. Fred Bauder 12:13, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
The color/colour example is totally without merit. We've got a quite good guideline about when and where to use each. I'm still not clear on why this is required, even if I were to accept (which I don't) that it's even ok in principle.
  • When it comes to "making arbitrary decisions" clearly anyone can make the decisions but only those decisions made by admins are likely to be enforced.
  • When it comes to "accepting arbitrary decisions" what purpose does this finding serve other than as stick, no carrot?
We really shouldn't be just making arbitrary decisions. I am afraid this principle will certainly make it easier to deal with irritating cases, to be cited while waving hands and saying "go away." But it's a very poor substitute to making a reasoned decision based upon facts. Do we really need these principles in support of the remedies?
brenneman {L} 02:51, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm sure we could get by without it, but I think it is sound. There often is no one correct way. Administrators need to recognize when such a situation arises and not interfere. Fred Bauder 03:00, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Eeek. Now I'm confused about how I'd react (as an adminstrator) if this all played out again. I'm afraid I'd err on the side of "interfere earlier" as opposed to "not interfere." I'm convinced that the implications of this principle has been thought out by the committee, but still don't fully understand the arguments. - brenneman {L} 04:33, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Section 3.3.7 Parties warned for incivility

Would this be covered by this section? [6] JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 00:39, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Section 3.3.2.1 Probation (all major move warriors)

User:PHenry has recently left Wikipedia citing several reasons related to this Arbcom. While I disagree with his decision to leave, as well as many of his reasons, one issue he brings up must be fixed, especially since it was clearly an oversight. In the proposed Probation, Freakofnurture is not listed as one of the major move warriors, this despite the fact the he is listed as one in the finding of fact. Could one of the arbitrators please fix this oversight? -- Northenglish (talk) -- 19:32, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it's an oversight. Yes I've moved a lot of pages, but the moves that anybody is paying attention to, the State Routes (Washington), were based on new information from as authoritative a source as we are likely to find on this issue, which was linked to in the edit summary explaining each move. Had my rationale been something like "rv [username here]" or "rv POV" or "rv bold edits", or "rv" for no apparent reason other than the sake of doing it, I'd say yes, that would make me a major move warrior. However, in this case I moved the pages based on the persuasive and unambiguous evidence provided, just as I would have done in the absence of previous activity. — Jun. 24, '06 [21:21] <freak|talk>
Right, you're rationale was "<blink>pwned</blink>", and that's sooo much better.
On a more serious note, the e-mail was not new information, it was merely something to cite when SPUI, yourself, and others continued to say the same thing they'd always been saying, that the official name of the roads was "State Route X", something that I have never disagreed with. However, there is no "official names" naming convention. This debate has IMHO always been about how to best apply Naming conventions and Disambiguation guidelines, and the "new information" did nothing to change anyone's mind on either side with regard to those issues.
You have move warred, the "alternative" locus of dispute shows that the arbitrators agree with me on that. Would an arbitrator please clarify as to whether leaving Freakofnurture out of the probation was intentional or an oversight? -- Northenglish (talk) -- 21:54, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
I agree on Freakofnurture being culpable in the move war and that he too should be cited as one of the "warriors". JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 21:16, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
He is cited as one of the move warriors. Dmcdevit·t 21:47, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
I wrote the proposal, and considered Freakofnurture's involvement. He is not included for the simple reason that while he certainly did move war, I don't think he was as invovled as the others. In this case, I am much more certain than with any of the others that the prohibition on controversial moves is enough. My other reason is this: Freakofnurture is a part already included in proposlas here; that means that in the case that our remedies against him were not sufficient and misconduct continues, it is an easy job to correct that with an amendment to the case after it is closed. If, after the case closes, it appears the probation ought to be extended to him based on continuing behavior, tell us why at WP:RFAr#Requests for Clarification and we'll make the appropriate measure. Dmcdevit·t 21:47, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
While I still would have liked to have seen him included on the probation, I definitely see what your saying. Just to clarify, under 3.3.6 Controversial moves and 3.4.2 Enforcement of moves without consensus, Freakofnurture would be blocked if he made any controversial page moves without consesus, regardless of whether or not he's acutally on probation? -- Northenglish (talk) -- 22:56, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
That is how it is intended. Dmcdevit·t 05:57, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
If this is so, then why is it necessary to put anyone on probation at all? It's certainly not true that Freakofnurture has been "less involved." He's moved a lot more highway pages than I have. Incredibly, he moved a page during this very arbitration! I can't imagine why the prohibition on controversial moves wouldn't be enough for me, who stopped moving pages the very first time someone asked me to, but would be enough for Freakofnurture, who didn't. More to the point, if the object is to prohibit people from moving controversial pages, and both the punishment and standard of judgment are identical for parties who are on probation and parties who are not, then clearly the only point of probation would be to brand certain individuals with a scarlet letter while exempting others. Moreover, as none other than SPUI has correctly noted, probation basically gives any administrator license to block the person at any time for anything without having to justify it ("if you screw up enough to deserve mandated probation, we figure that you're probably a disruptive person and any subsequent blocks are probably right"). The entire probation proposal is arbitrary, harmful, and makes no distinction between degrees of action and culpability, and I will not contribute to Wikipedia while it is in force. —phh (t/c) 02:23, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd suggest the phrase "This resolution by itself does not reflect negatively upon the parties mentioned here, but is a precaution." --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 22:52, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I second this and think it would be a worthy addition, especially since it is both true and in good community spirit. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 23:22, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
It would certainly be better than what's being voted on now, but it would still be an arbitrary and cavalier probation. —phh (t/c) 02:23, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Maybe the spectre of such consequences hanging over us move warriors will improve the situation. It certainly worked in Iraq under Sadamm. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 17:57, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] More on the probation

The proposed decision (if that section passes) will place most of the parties on probation. As has been confirmed by Tony Sidaway in a conversation on IRC, this means that admins can block for anything and claim it was done under the probation, as the blocking admin can define disruption. As it is being done with implied ArbCom approval, whether such approval exists or not, other admins are less likely to unblock (and such unblocks may not be proper - see below). An earlier probation has recently resulted in a week-long block on me for a page I made over a year ago, and recent actions I took to save the code (mostly in comment tags, to avoid screwing up my user page) before deletion. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Today's SPUI blocking and [7] for details.

An earlier incident resulted in Tony Sidaway banning me from any page I had recently used the word "fuck" on. As above, disruption is in the eye of the blocking admin only. Tony also made it clear in that case that any unblock would not override the ban, and would be misleading in that I could still not "legally" edit according to Wikipedia:Banning policy. See User talk:SPUI#Edit summaries.

Thus, I dispute the appropriateness of the probation. It basically tells admins "look, here's someone you can block and get away with it". --SPUI (T - C) 11:12, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

SPUI has been reminded by me that the words "admins can block for anything and claim it was done under the probation" are his and his alone, and that far from confirming his interpretation I have refuted it at every occasion. I ask him to correct his error in claiming that I have confirmed or have anything to do with his interpretation other than denying it.
The earlier ban (the "fuck" one) was for provocative editing, involved many instances of use of the word "fuck" in one single day, and followed his negative and provocative response to a polite intervention by another administrator before I was involved. SPUI was unbanned after long discussion and undertakings from him. He seems to think that there is nothing at all provocative about the use of such language. --Tony Sidaway 11:24, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
SPUI says "look, here's someone you can block and get away with it". I must agree. I certainly wouldn't lift a finger. Lots of weird stuff, lots of excuses, lots of argument. Fred Bauder 12:16, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
I think that, with SPUI, we reach the limits of what can be achieved through probation. SPUI's approach soaks up lots of administrator time, but seems to be largely a matter of his need for gratification through attention. He is skilled at manipulation and any attempt to control his behavior can quickly suck the well-meaning administrator into a quagmire. Perhaps a clearly written public admonishment over his time-wasting might get through to him in a way that he would find it hard to ignore. --Tony Sidaway 23:05, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Or maybe this is how I am, and I don't do this to gain attention. But I'm going to try to ignore you after this message, and I suggest others do the same. --SPUI (T - C) 03:38, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
Speculating on the motives of an editor rather than on their edits is pointless and error-prone. Which is partly why this probation is untenable: "Provocative" is about intentions, and we can only guess at those. - brenneman {L} 05:17, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
We can observe that SPUI is intelligent and his behavior follows a pattern of seeking and testing boundaries (his behavior in the pedophilia userbox case is just one of many instances of this) We can assume merely that he has some control over his behavior (if he doesn't have that, then he shouldn't be editing at all).
Thus none of my comment assumes anything about SPUI's intentions. We can simply address the observed behavior. Not that there's anything wrong with inferring intentions from behavior--we do that all the time, otherwise we'd be unable to distinguish vandalism from other bad edits. --Tony Sidaway 10:56, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
My behavior in the pedophilia userbox case was a case of me deciding to take a possibly-indefinite break and then ensuring it would happen. Your assumption that this is the same is unfounded. --SPUI (T - C) 00:55, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't wish to involve myself with any specific issues on this aspect of the dispute, but let me make a couple of general statements. I am fully in favor of probation for all parties that move warred (including Freakofnurture re: above). However, I feel that provocative needs to be better defined in order to be fairly enforced. I cannot fathom why User:SPUI/jajaja would be considered provocative, nor can I fathom why his page moves relevant to this case would not be considered provocative (obviously they provoked some people). -- Northenglish (talk) -- 22:46, 1 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Request from Rschen

"As long as the probation covers the non-consensus crap that happened with {{routeboxca2}} at WT:CASH then it works for me. If we trust our admins then hopefully there won't be any problems. But if an admin decides to have a heyday and block for no worthy reason, then we're toast. But then because of that crooked admin Wikipedia would be toast anyway."

-Posted on behalf of Rschen by JohnnyBGood (talk • contribs) 21:57, July 10, 2006 UTC

I'm Rschen7754, and I approve of this message. :) --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 23:18, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/e/q/Wikipedia_talk%7ERequests_for_arbitration_Highways_Proposed_decision_339a.html"