Misplaced Pages

:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-03-12 U.S. Roads: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Mediation Cabal | Cases Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 06:11, 19 March 2006 editRschen7754 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users123,234 edits →Other edit wars: vandalism← Previous edit Revision as of 06:13, 19 March 2006 edit undoSPUI (talk | contribs)75,418 edits {{fact}}Next edit →
Line 356: Line 356:
*] *]
*] *]
* * {{fact}}
* * {{fact}}
----- -----
''Per ], state splits should be discussed before being split off. The following state-specific pages were not discussed:'' ''Per ], state splits should be discussed before being split off. The following state-specific pages were not discussed:''

Revision as of 06:13, 19 March 2006

Mediation

Please observe Misplaced Pages:Etiquette and Talk Page Etiquette in disputes. If you submit complaints or insults your edits are likely to be removed by the mediator, any other refactoring of the mediation case by anybody but the mediator is likely to be reverted. If you are not satisfied with the mediation procedure please submit your complaints to Misplaced Pages talk:Mediation Cabal.


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?
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.

Mediator response

Evidence

Pages moved


Pages moved by SPUI

SPUI also moved the entire Florida, Massachusetts, and New Jersey highway pages, although noone opposed him there. He is in a revert war at WP:NYSR as well, changing the naming conventions on that page to suit himself, although consensus is against him.

The following pages were moved by SPUI after this MedCabal was filed.

Also see page move log.

These are the pages that have been moved to some variant of "State Route X (California)".

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

Discussions regarding pages moved


Discussions

These are the discussions regarding the pages moved.

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

Pages with infoboxes changed


Infoboxes removed by SPUI

Infoboxes that SPUI continued to remove after this MedCom was filed:

These are the pages that use {{Infobox CA Route}} because SPUI replaced {{routeboxca2}} with it.

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

Discussions regarding pages with infoboxes removed


Discussions

These are the discussions that provide the consensus against SPUI's mass removal of {{routeboxca2}}.

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

I-95 exit list


I-95 exit list

I-95 exit list (also look at history)

Page that SPUI is reverting

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

Discussions regarding I-95 exit list


Discussions

Discussions regarding this page that SPUI ignored many times.

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


Other edit wars


Edit wars

Per WP:IH, state splits should be discussed before being split off. The following state-specific pages were not discussed:

Other edit wars that SPUI has been involved in lately and is not willing to come to consensus on.

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

Compromise offers

This section is for listing and discussing compromise offers.


Comments by others

While using the talk page of the article in question to solve a dispute is encouraged to involve a larger audience, feel free to discuss the case below if that is not possible. Other mediators are also encouraged to join in on the discussion as Misplaced Pages is based on consensus.


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)

(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)

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)

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)