Revision as of 03:14, 10 June 2006 editSPUI (talk | contribs)75,418 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit | Revision as of 21:13, 10 June 2006 edit undoKacie Jane (talk | contribs)13,639 edits →"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.": urging to readNext edit → | ||
Line 69: | Line 69: | ||
By the way, I urge everyone to read ]. --] (] - ]) 01:02, 10 June 2006 (UTC) | By the way, I urge everyone to read ]. --] (] - ]) 01:02, 10 June 2006 (UTC) | ||
:I urge everyone to read ]. Although I know I don't have to urge you, because everyone here is going to read everything regarding this case. -- ] 21:13, 10 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
==Clarification== | ==Clarification== |
Revision as of 21:13, 10 June 2006
I disagree strongly with the proposed injunction. Just looking through my move log:
- 07:57, 7 June 2006 SPUI moved Interstate 895B to Interstate 895 Spur - I made this at what had been a red link, and immediately moved it to a better name
- 07:30, 7 June 2006 SPUI moved Washington Boulevard to Washington Boulevard (Los Angeles) (dab) - simple disambiguation of a local street
- 00:37, 5 June 2006 SPUI moved U.S. Route 60 in Illinois to U.S. Route 60/62 in Illinois (merging) - merging this page with U.S. Route 62 in Illinois, as the two share a common routing - note that the injunction would have forced me to copy-paste move to complete the merge
- 20:12, 3 June 2006 SPUI moved Airport Expressway to Airport Expressway (Beijing) (dab) - another disambiguation
- 09:23, 25 May 2006 SPUI moved Talk:Interstate 70 in Pennsylvania to Interstate 70 in Pennsylvania (ready to move) - I wrote the article on its talk page and then moved it to article space when ready
- 08:22, 25 May 2006 SPUI moved Alphabet Loop to Downtown freeway loop (Kansas City) (real name) - "Alphabet Loop" is a neologism
- 05:23, 11 May 2006 SPUI moved Old Spanish Trail to Old Spanish Trail (trade route) (dab) - another disambiguation
- 06:56, 1 April 2006 SPUI moved Interstate 295 (Delaware-New Jersey-Pennsylvania) to Interstate 295 (Delaware-New Jersey) (it will not enter Pennsylvania) - in this case, the people doing the Pennsylvania Turnpike/Interstate 95 Interchange Project decided that I-195 rather than I-295 would enter Pennsylvania.
Also, for moves that are within the expected scope (state highways), I recently moved most Pennsylvania and Michigan routes, in accordance with discussion on Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Pennsylvania State Highways and Talk:List of highways in Michigan. A little while ago, I was asked to move Illinois (Misplaced Pages 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. Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages? --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)
- No, you're on goatse.cx. --SPUI (T - C) 00:00, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oh boy. Wait... am I on Misplaced Pages? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 23:58, 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)
- POV. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 23:55, 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)
- No... that you're unwilling to listen to consensus. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 23:52, 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)
- Sweet. Argument is made for me. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 23:45, 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)
- Oh yes. Misplaced Pages: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)
- The maturity level here is astounding. -- Northenglish 02:53, 8 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)
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 Misplaced Pages 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)
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"... (Misplaced Pages: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 <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)
- 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)
- 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)
"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)
"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 Misplaced Pages: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)
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)