Please observe Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal.
Pages moved by SPUI and infoboxes converted to {{ Infobox CA Route}} by him
Also see page move log.
These are the pages that have been moved to some variant of "State Route X (California)".
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.
* = page moved after Med Cabal was filed.
Rschen7754 ( talk - contribs) 03:40, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Discussions
These are the discussions regarding the pages moved.
Rschen7754 ( talk - contribs) 03:40, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
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
These are the discussions that provide the consensus against SPUI's mass removal of {{ routeboxca2}}.
Rschen7754 ( talk - contribs) 03:40, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Rschen7754 ( talk - contribs) 03:40, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Discussions
Discussions regarding this page that SPUI ignored many times.
Rschen7754 ( talk - contribs) 03:40, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
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)
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, consistent 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 with 3 possible compromises.
If all parties who want to be involved in this decision 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)
This section is for listing and discussing compromise offers.
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)
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)
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)
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 Wikipedia 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)
-- Chris 20:00, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
(moved back to left) Common sense, how about? -- Rschen7754 ( talk - contribs) 06:22, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
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)
There are at least two separate issues:
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)
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
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Please observe Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal.
Pages moved by SPUI and infoboxes converted to {{ Infobox CA Route}} by him
Also see page move log.
These are the pages that have been moved to some variant of "State Route X (California)".
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.
* = page moved after Med Cabal was filed.
Rschen7754 ( talk - contribs) 03:40, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Discussions
These are the discussions regarding the pages moved.
Rschen7754 ( talk - contribs) 03:40, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
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
These are the discussions that provide the consensus against SPUI's mass removal of {{ routeboxca2}}.
Rschen7754 ( talk - contribs) 03:40, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Rschen7754 ( talk - contribs) 03:40, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Discussions
Discussions regarding this page that SPUI ignored many times.
Rschen7754 ( talk - contribs) 03:40, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
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)
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, consistent 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 with 3 possible compromises.
If all parties who want to be involved in this decision 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)
This section is for listing and discussing compromise offers.
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)
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)
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)
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 Wikipedia 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)
-- Chris 20:00, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
(moved back to left) Common sense, how about? -- Rschen7754 ( talk - contribs) 06:22, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
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)
There are at least two separate issues:
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)
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
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)