I've been somewhat involved with this (and am a little dismayed that I was not informed this had been moved to arbitration). Specifically, I was involved in part of the California dispute, and also involved in the Washington State dispute. SPUI's behavior is, I think, understandable. Relatively new administrators such as Rschen7754 ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) had been trying to enforce a "rule" they believe they created on WP:AN/I (the rule stating that there are to be no page moves of highway related articles). Rschen7754, who was involved in a dispute with me at the time, blocked me and refused to unblock me unless I promised to not move pages away from his preferred naming. I believe this behavior is, in part, why SPUI may have given up on discussion (not to mention the lack of interest by the opposing parties to listen to what he has to say).
To quote the Blocking policy, specifically, "When blocking may not be used", it states: Use of blocks to gain an advantage in a content dispute is strictly prohibited. That is, sysops must not block editors with whom they are currently engaged in a content dispute.
I urge the ArbCom to accept this case to look at the abuse of sysop powers by Rschen7754 and how this may have affected peoples interest in opposing his point of view. As per Raul654's suggestion below, having a binding decision on the content dispute might also prove useful, but I believe there's a deeper problem that needs to be addressed. — Locke Cole • t • c 03:20, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
I have an idea - would it be acceptable to both parties if, instead of accepting this case, we (the committee) simply offered binding decision as to the naming dispute? That is to say, both SPUI and JohnnyBGood give us a BRIEF explination for why their naming scheme is the correct one and the other guy's is not, and we come down in favor of one or the other. Raul654 01:39, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
So what is going to happen? We need a solution since SPUI has shown signs of wanting to move the Utah pages. -- Rschen7754 ( talk - contribs) 21:50, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
I don't approve of the Committee offering a ruling as the Arbitration Committee on the correct naming style. But if all parties are willing to let an uninvolved party such as Raul654 make the call and then promise to abide by it, I'd be perfectly happy to drop this case. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 16:15, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Here's the latest development, lads. Snoutwood (talk) 16:10, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
So that everyone is clear could we please have a temporary injunction banning moving state highway pages? SPUI has continued to do so slowly. This is the only thing that will stop it. -- Rschen7754 ( talk - contribs) 02:40, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
If you're not going to rule on the style issue then what is the point of this Arbcom being heard at all? There is no arbitration being requested about the moves rather then the source of the moves which is the style issue. Solve the style issue and the move problem solves itself. JohnnyBGood t c 00:02, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Apart from performing the purely mechanical task of opening this case, I have decided to recuse as a clerk. -- Tony Sidaway 18:04, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
If I am needed, please contact me by email as I will not be on much over the next few months. -- Rschen7754 ( talk - contribs) 18:58, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
— Jun. 2, '06 [00:49] < freak| talk>
I confess that I am somewhat unclear about the parameters for discussion here. My reading of the ArbCom vote for taking this matter up is that this case is for debating and taking action regarding "policy infractions over policy creation," as James F. put it. While it is certainly true that SPUI and Freakofnurture have committed enough infractions to keep us all busy for quite some time, the heart of the matter as I see it is that this matter can never be settled until a naming convention or conventions are decided upon, and that SPUI has rejected and continues to reject any and all attempts to arrive at a convention because of the chance that such an attempt may not result in his personal choice being accepted as the convention. So my questions are as follows:
I welcome any clarification that anyone can offer. — phh ( t/ c) 07:25, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Contrary to the decision following a WT:CASH poll, SPUI has been changing all occurences of {{ routeboxca2}} to {{ Infobox CA Route}}. I know that that is not mentioned here but I'd like it addressed. -- Rschen7754 ( talk - contribs) 23:01, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
SPUI ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and B.Wind ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) both got blocked today for 3RR and revert warring over at Waterways forming and crossings of the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway and various Florida highway pages. This is also not part of the original scope of the RfAr, but you might want to keep it in mind. Sam8 18:10, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Unfortunately, I will be away from Wikipedia for a few months. My access to the site has been limited and I can only get on during a few hours a week. However, during summer my schedule changes, and thus I am unable to get back on Wikipedia.
You may contact me however, at Wikisource or by email (keep me updated on the arbcom case, I will be able to respond)...
I'm not really sure when I'll be returning. Possibly in August or September... although I signed up to take AP Chemistry, AP Language, AP U.S. History, Pre-Calculus, Spanish 4, Physics, and Eschatology and Hermaneutics. Don't know how the homework load will be. But rest assured... I'll be back.
-- Rschen7754 ( talk - contribs) 23:56, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
I (mistakenly?) assumed that changing "Washington State Route X" to "State Route X (Washington)" was on hold until this was over. However, from my watch list...
13 June 2006
State Route 704 (Washington); 05:40 . .
SPUI (
talk |
contribs) (cleanup)
State Route 167 (Washington); 05:17 . .
SPUI (
talk |
contribs) (cleanup)
State Route 119 (Washington); 05:16 . .
SPUI (
talk |
contribs) (cleanup)
These were disambiguation edits; for example, State Route 704 (Washington) had a link, SR-7, which SPUI changed to State Route 7, pointing it to the current SR-7 page name. Is it OK to make these changes, or are these changes be on hold, too? Travisl 21:37, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
This has basically become a ForestFire, just like all previous attempts to resolve this. People of the ArbCom, please come down from your proposed decision on high and mingle with the peons. -- SPUI ( T - C) 01:03, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
I was thinking of forming a structured discussion - with wide input (so not on a WikiProject) - about the issue. But where would I do this? I'm not actually proposing a naming convention, but getting input from those outside the issue.
And then... if it does turn out that there's "rough consensus" for parenthetical disambiguation, what happens? -- SPUI ( T - C) 10:44, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
James F. said on IRC that "the naming conventions page is well-known to be radically different from policy at times". Thus, even if a naming convention is approved, apparently nothing would change. -- SPUI ( T - C) 20:21, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Oh, and I'm still wondering where such a discussion should be. -- SPUI ( T - C) 20:21, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
As everyone who is involved with this case is undoubtedly aware, I have long supported the naming convention of "Washington State Route X" over "State Route X (Washington)" citing the more complete names convention on WP:D. That convention reads thusly:
However, today while looking for references to cite, I looked at the "Titan rocket" article to see how it uses various naming conventions. Imagine my surprise when -- despite WP:D using it as an example -- I discovered that Titan rocket is actually a redirect to an article named Titan (rocket family). The page history of Titan (rocket family) seems to indicate that it was never originally located at "Titan rocket"; if it was, it was only as recent as December 20, 2003, the date the redirect was created. The talk page contains very little discussion, none on any moves that may have occurred or regarding naming conventions.
Using this new evidence (which I am ashamed to admit has existed all along, thus making me look like an idiot), it is clear to me that "more complete names" does not actually exist as a disambiguation guideline; or if it does exist, it does not automatically take preference over parentheses just because it appears first in the numbered list. I am curious as to why this example has been allowed to remain on Wikipedia:Disambiguation when it has been outdated for nearly three years (if it was ever true at all).
The point of all this is to tell you that I have changed my opinion. There are certainly cases where non-parenthetical disambiguation is appropriate; however, I am prepared to yield to parenthetical disambiguation for state highways if consensus makes it so, and I am prepared to support and defend parenthetical disambiguation in discussions that seek consensus.
Of course, if consensus turns out to support the original "Washington State Route X" convention, I am more than happy to accept that as well.
HOWEVER, how I feel regarding the naming conventions is irrelevant to this case. I am still a party to this case, and I will continue to post the same arguments in this case; I will merely have to use a slightly different angle. I have stated several times that this is no longer a content dispute; it is a policy dispute centered around move warring, failure to seek consensus, etc. Many parties in this case have move warred, SPUI did not seek consensus for his edits; how I feel about naming conventions does not change these facts.
-- Northenglish ( talk) -- 02:57, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Highways#Enforcement of moves without consensus states that "If any participant to this dispute moves a state highway page to their preferred convention before a formal policy has been reached, he or she may be blocked for a short time of up to a week for repeated offenses." Say Route 69 is renumbered to Route 31. (This type of whole-route renumbering occurs occasionally.) Is this measure intended to make the obvious move blockable? Or should "from another convention" be added after "to their preferred convention"?
I also note that it specifically mentions state highways. Is Canada fair game, as long as I'm not disruptive? -- SPUI ( T - C) 19:32, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Also I'd like to know what the duration of the probation is as no set limit was established in the Arbcom. Is this probation indefinite? Or can we appeal it after 3 months? -- JohnnyBGood 20:54, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Another question: where do I start on making a "formal policy"? I talked to a policy wonk and he confirmed that naming conventions are typically guidelines. -- SPUI ( T - C) 13:53, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
As a result of consensus in the Poll, we at the WikiProject Virginia Highways ( talk) request to begin moving pages to the new naming convention on Friday, September 15th. These moves are in line with what was reached in the poll, and what is agreed on on the talk page. We request that the following users not be blocked for page moves: User:MPD01605, User:NE2, User:No1lakersfan, User:Gooday.1, User:Doctor Whom, and User:Rschen7754. As of now, there are no bots, but should one become available, I will notify. Thank you. -- MPD01605 ( T / C) 15:44, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia:State route naming conventions poll may have been set up as a majority-wins poll, but the ArbCom clearly encouraged consensus on the matter. There is a clear lack of consensus on the poll, and yet so far three of the "admin judges" are treating it as a majority-wins poll. -- SPUI ( T - C) 06:10, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
I would like to ask the arbcom for clarification. Specifically, I would like explicit endorsement or repudiation of the following principles (which form the basis for how I have been operating since I got involved in trying to shepherd the process along:
I have made some statements that not everyone agrees with. The following references may be of some use.
I have handed out a block to SPUI in this matter for what I viewed as disruption. It was reduced but not overturned. I feel SPUI returned to his disruptive ways last night but perhaps has settled down today. I would nevertheless welcome review of my actions and I seek clarification in the form of yes/no answers to the questions I pose above. I was counseled by some to let this go, to let someone else implement but i am one of the 6 "judges". Comment on whether I should leave enforcement to a non judge admin welcomed as well. ++ Lar: t/ c 16:03, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for your effort, Lar. Please note that the opinions I expressed above are my own, not those of the Committee. Fred Bauder 16:18, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Some of the proponents of Principle II in the recent Highway naming poll are trying to comeup with a Manual of Style that addresses most of the concerns of Principle II supporters while keeping in line with the decision by the majorit to use the style of Principle I in the article title. This is being done at WP:USSH. I am under the impression that Lar and a few others think this is disruption. We are trying to gain real consensus by addressing specific problems with the chosen Principle without overturning it. I strongly believe that is not disruption. I hope most of thr ArbCom agrees. -- Polaron | Talk 16:33, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Would it be acceptable to the ArbCom if the members of this entire debate just sat down and had a civil conversation, and reached a virtually unanimous agreement on a compromise? They seem to be on track to do this now, but some are raising concerns about being outside of the process of the naming conventions poll, and that the judges of said poll have already ruled that there is a consensus. Personally, I don't think that matters, because it's always good to have more people agree, so there's no harm in having more discussion. At worst, it's just more incivil discussion and you won't be able to tell it apart from the rest anyway, but it doesn't seem to be heading that way, and is currently being rather productive. What does the ArbCom think? -- Rory096 16:38, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
What would the proceedure be for getting off probation? There were four users placed on probation, SPUI, PHenry, JohnnyBGood, and myself. SPUI did have some run-ins at WP:SRNC, but has left. PHenry has not edited since the conclusion of the case. JohnnyBGood has drifted away from highway articles a bit, editing other articles. (but in effect not doing any mass moves). I started WP:SRNC, and the poll has concluded, and mass moves are being done to move the pages to the agreed upon locations. -- Rschen7754 ( talk - contribs) 22:26, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm told this is the appropriate place to come for this appeal. In July, I was placed on probation as part of the decision in this RfA. I do not believe this decision was just, and I have chosen not to participate as an editor at Wikipedia rather than continue editing while subject to an unjust probation. In the nearly four months since that decision, I believe, subsequent events have demonstrated rather starkly that arbitrator Fred Bauder's initial assessment of the cause of the dispute was correct, and that JohnnyBGood, Rschen7754, and I should never have been placed on probation in relation to this matter. In addition, the underlying dispute has been harmoniously resolved, which suggests that the need for probation, assuming such need ever existed in the first place, has now ended. Accordingly, I request that this probation be formally lifted. Thank you. — phh ( t/ c) 01:03, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Um, I'm right here in case anyone had wondered. I just blanked my talk page and userpage :) JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 01:21, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
WP:RFAR/HWY was an arbitration case that placed me on probation in relation to highways articles because of a naming dispute that got ugly. However, not only have I refrained from disrupting the highways articles (except for one controversial block many months ago), but I have made over 13000 edits since that time. The naming dispute has also been satisfactorily resolved at WP:SRNC. Page moves have taken place, and there is peace at the highways section of Wikipedia. I have been influential in building the project infastructure ( WP:USRD/NEWS, massive assessment of articles, infobox changes at WP:CASH, and much more). Thus, not as a license to disrupt articles, which I would not do under any circumstances, but as the removal of a blotch on my Wikipedia reputation, I am requesting the removal of my probation on Wikipedia. (Please make this motion separate from the other highways request below). -- Rschen7754 ( talk - contribs) 05:03, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
In July of last year I was placed on probation as part of the decision in this RfA. I do not believe this decision was just, and I believe that the unusual indefinite length of this probation despite the fact that I have never been a disruptive editor and that no evidence was ever presented against me is arbitrary and unfair. Accordingly, I've chosen to abandon this account in the meantime rather than to tacitly accept the legitimacy of this unjust probation by continuing to edit with it. In October I sought to have this probation lifted but, perversely, my appeal was rejected because I hadn't been editing in the meantime. However, since that time I have been editing without incident as An Innocent Man, and I believe my contribution history there continues to demonstrate that I am not now, nor have I ever been, a disruptive user--and, incidentally, it should be noted that I have not been editing any of the articles I'm putatively enjoined from "disrupting," nor do I have even the slightest shred of a shadow of a desire to ever do so again as long as I live. I would therefore like to ask once again that this unjust probation be lifted.
I am familiar with the rules governing the use of alternate accounts, and I believe my use of this one falls within the bounds of acceptability. I only created it because the thought of using my normal account while I am subject to an unjust probation sickens me. My only intent here is to clear my good name. — phh ( t/ c) 13:16, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Rschen7754 ( talk · contribs) and PHenry ( talk · contribs) have appealed their continued probation in the Highways case. I believe that their continued probation is not necessary and move to end it forthwith. Matthew Brown (Morven) ( T: C) 13:50, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Will this then apply to all parties in that case who were assigned probation? It seems to me that we should treat all the same unless there are circumstances mandating differential treatment. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 01:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Highways was an arbitration case that placed me on probation in relation to highways articles because of a naming dispute that got ugly and out of hand. However since that time (9 months ago) I've made over 1000 contributions and edits to the project without any blocks or bans levied against me in that time. Nor have I disrupted or attempted to disrupt any articles, hwy related or otherwise. Page moves have taken place per a consensus that was developed out of this arbitration case, and there is peace at the highways section of Wikipedia. I would like to get this block lifted so as to clean my record and allow me to contribute with a clean slate as I would like to continue my contributions to hwy articles. Also I'd point out that the other two active users who were put on probation have also had theirs lifted as well and they had incurred blocks during they probation period [4], something which I did not have against me. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 21:00, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
User:JohnnyBGood has requested the same relief from probation as granted to User:Rschen7754 and User:PHenry. I am inclined to grant it. I am not inclined to extend such relief to User:SPUI, based on repeated violations of the probation, but I also wish to propose that restrictions on SPUI terminate twelve months after his last probation violation.
Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:
I've been somewhat involved with this (and am a little dismayed that I was not informed this had been moved to arbitration). Specifically, I was involved in part of the California dispute, and also involved in the Washington State dispute. SPUI's behavior is, I think, understandable. Relatively new administrators such as Rschen7754 ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) had been trying to enforce a "rule" they believe they created on WP:AN/I (the rule stating that there are to be no page moves of highway related articles). Rschen7754, who was involved in a dispute with me at the time, blocked me and refused to unblock me unless I promised to not move pages away from his preferred naming. I believe this behavior is, in part, why SPUI may have given up on discussion (not to mention the lack of interest by the opposing parties to listen to what he has to say).
To quote the Blocking policy, specifically, "When blocking may not be used", it states: Use of blocks to gain an advantage in a content dispute is strictly prohibited. That is, sysops must not block editors with whom they are currently engaged in a content dispute.
I urge the ArbCom to accept this case to look at the abuse of sysop powers by Rschen7754 and how this may have affected peoples interest in opposing his point of view. As per Raul654's suggestion below, having a binding decision on the content dispute might also prove useful, but I believe there's a deeper problem that needs to be addressed. — Locke Cole • t • c 03:20, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
I have an idea - would it be acceptable to both parties if, instead of accepting this case, we (the committee) simply offered binding decision as to the naming dispute? That is to say, both SPUI and JohnnyBGood give us a BRIEF explination for why their naming scheme is the correct one and the other guy's is not, and we come down in favor of one or the other. Raul654 01:39, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
So what is going to happen? We need a solution since SPUI has shown signs of wanting to move the Utah pages. -- Rschen7754 ( talk - contribs) 21:50, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
I don't approve of the Committee offering a ruling as the Arbitration Committee on the correct naming style. But if all parties are willing to let an uninvolved party such as Raul654 make the call and then promise to abide by it, I'd be perfectly happy to drop this case. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 16:15, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Here's the latest development, lads. Snoutwood (talk) 16:10, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
So that everyone is clear could we please have a temporary injunction banning moving state highway pages? SPUI has continued to do so slowly. This is the only thing that will stop it. -- Rschen7754 ( talk - contribs) 02:40, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
If you're not going to rule on the style issue then what is the point of this Arbcom being heard at all? There is no arbitration being requested about the moves rather then the source of the moves which is the style issue. Solve the style issue and the move problem solves itself. JohnnyBGood t c 00:02, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Apart from performing the purely mechanical task of opening this case, I have decided to recuse as a clerk. -- Tony Sidaway 18:04, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
If I am needed, please contact me by email as I will not be on much over the next few months. -- Rschen7754 ( talk - contribs) 18:58, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
— Jun. 2, '06 [00:49] < freak| talk>
I confess that I am somewhat unclear about the parameters for discussion here. My reading of the ArbCom vote for taking this matter up is that this case is for debating and taking action regarding "policy infractions over policy creation," as James F. put it. While it is certainly true that SPUI and Freakofnurture have committed enough infractions to keep us all busy for quite some time, the heart of the matter as I see it is that this matter can never be settled until a naming convention or conventions are decided upon, and that SPUI has rejected and continues to reject any and all attempts to arrive at a convention because of the chance that such an attempt may not result in his personal choice being accepted as the convention. So my questions are as follows:
I welcome any clarification that anyone can offer. — phh ( t/ c) 07:25, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Contrary to the decision following a WT:CASH poll, SPUI has been changing all occurences of {{ routeboxca2}} to {{ Infobox CA Route}}. I know that that is not mentioned here but I'd like it addressed. -- Rschen7754 ( talk - contribs) 23:01, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
SPUI ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and B.Wind ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) both got blocked today for 3RR and revert warring over at Waterways forming and crossings of the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway and various Florida highway pages. This is also not part of the original scope of the RfAr, but you might want to keep it in mind. Sam8 18:10, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Unfortunately, I will be away from Wikipedia for a few months. My access to the site has been limited and I can only get on during a few hours a week. However, during summer my schedule changes, and thus I am unable to get back on Wikipedia.
You may contact me however, at Wikisource or by email (keep me updated on the arbcom case, I will be able to respond)...
I'm not really sure when I'll be returning. Possibly in August or September... although I signed up to take AP Chemistry, AP Language, AP U.S. History, Pre-Calculus, Spanish 4, Physics, and Eschatology and Hermaneutics. Don't know how the homework load will be. But rest assured... I'll be back.
-- Rschen7754 ( talk - contribs) 23:56, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
I (mistakenly?) assumed that changing "Washington State Route X" to "State Route X (Washington)" was on hold until this was over. However, from my watch list...
13 June 2006
State Route 704 (Washington); 05:40 . .
SPUI (
talk |
contribs) (cleanup)
State Route 167 (Washington); 05:17 . .
SPUI (
talk |
contribs) (cleanup)
State Route 119 (Washington); 05:16 . .
SPUI (
talk |
contribs) (cleanup)
These were disambiguation edits; for example, State Route 704 (Washington) had a link, SR-7, which SPUI changed to State Route 7, pointing it to the current SR-7 page name. Is it OK to make these changes, or are these changes be on hold, too? Travisl 21:37, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
This has basically become a ForestFire, just like all previous attempts to resolve this. People of the ArbCom, please come down from your proposed decision on high and mingle with the peons. -- SPUI ( T - C) 01:03, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
I was thinking of forming a structured discussion - with wide input (so not on a WikiProject) - about the issue. But where would I do this? I'm not actually proposing a naming convention, but getting input from those outside the issue.
And then... if it does turn out that there's "rough consensus" for parenthetical disambiguation, what happens? -- SPUI ( T - C) 10:44, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
James F. said on IRC that "the naming conventions page is well-known to be radically different from policy at times". Thus, even if a naming convention is approved, apparently nothing would change. -- SPUI ( T - C) 20:21, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Oh, and I'm still wondering where such a discussion should be. -- SPUI ( T - C) 20:21, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
As everyone who is involved with this case is undoubtedly aware, I have long supported the naming convention of "Washington State Route X" over "State Route X (Washington)" citing the more complete names convention on WP:D. That convention reads thusly:
However, today while looking for references to cite, I looked at the "Titan rocket" article to see how it uses various naming conventions. Imagine my surprise when -- despite WP:D using it as an example -- I discovered that Titan rocket is actually a redirect to an article named Titan (rocket family). The page history of Titan (rocket family) seems to indicate that it was never originally located at "Titan rocket"; if it was, it was only as recent as December 20, 2003, the date the redirect was created. The talk page contains very little discussion, none on any moves that may have occurred or regarding naming conventions.
Using this new evidence (which I am ashamed to admit has existed all along, thus making me look like an idiot), it is clear to me that "more complete names" does not actually exist as a disambiguation guideline; or if it does exist, it does not automatically take preference over parentheses just because it appears first in the numbered list. I am curious as to why this example has been allowed to remain on Wikipedia:Disambiguation when it has been outdated for nearly three years (if it was ever true at all).
The point of all this is to tell you that I have changed my opinion. There are certainly cases where non-parenthetical disambiguation is appropriate; however, I am prepared to yield to parenthetical disambiguation for state highways if consensus makes it so, and I am prepared to support and defend parenthetical disambiguation in discussions that seek consensus.
Of course, if consensus turns out to support the original "Washington State Route X" convention, I am more than happy to accept that as well.
HOWEVER, how I feel regarding the naming conventions is irrelevant to this case. I am still a party to this case, and I will continue to post the same arguments in this case; I will merely have to use a slightly different angle. I have stated several times that this is no longer a content dispute; it is a policy dispute centered around move warring, failure to seek consensus, etc. Many parties in this case have move warred, SPUI did not seek consensus for his edits; how I feel about naming conventions does not change these facts.
-- Northenglish ( talk) -- 02:57, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Highways#Enforcement of moves without consensus states that "If any participant to this dispute moves a state highway page to their preferred convention before a formal policy has been reached, he or she may be blocked for a short time of up to a week for repeated offenses." Say Route 69 is renumbered to Route 31. (This type of whole-route renumbering occurs occasionally.) Is this measure intended to make the obvious move blockable? Or should "from another convention" be added after "to their preferred convention"?
I also note that it specifically mentions state highways. Is Canada fair game, as long as I'm not disruptive? -- SPUI ( T - C) 19:32, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Also I'd like to know what the duration of the probation is as no set limit was established in the Arbcom. Is this probation indefinite? Or can we appeal it after 3 months? -- JohnnyBGood 20:54, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Another question: where do I start on making a "formal policy"? I talked to a policy wonk and he confirmed that naming conventions are typically guidelines. -- SPUI ( T - C) 13:53, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
As a result of consensus in the Poll, we at the WikiProject Virginia Highways ( talk) request to begin moving pages to the new naming convention on Friday, September 15th. These moves are in line with what was reached in the poll, and what is agreed on on the talk page. We request that the following users not be blocked for page moves: User:MPD01605, User:NE2, User:No1lakersfan, User:Gooday.1, User:Doctor Whom, and User:Rschen7754. As of now, there are no bots, but should one become available, I will notify. Thank you. -- MPD01605 ( T / C) 15:44, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia:State route naming conventions poll may have been set up as a majority-wins poll, but the ArbCom clearly encouraged consensus on the matter. There is a clear lack of consensus on the poll, and yet so far three of the "admin judges" are treating it as a majority-wins poll. -- SPUI ( T - C) 06:10, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
I would like to ask the arbcom for clarification. Specifically, I would like explicit endorsement or repudiation of the following principles (which form the basis for how I have been operating since I got involved in trying to shepherd the process along:
I have made some statements that not everyone agrees with. The following references may be of some use.
I have handed out a block to SPUI in this matter for what I viewed as disruption. It was reduced but not overturned. I feel SPUI returned to his disruptive ways last night but perhaps has settled down today. I would nevertheless welcome review of my actions and I seek clarification in the form of yes/no answers to the questions I pose above. I was counseled by some to let this go, to let someone else implement but i am one of the 6 "judges". Comment on whether I should leave enforcement to a non judge admin welcomed as well. ++ Lar: t/ c 16:03, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for your effort, Lar. Please note that the opinions I expressed above are my own, not those of the Committee. Fred Bauder 16:18, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Some of the proponents of Principle II in the recent Highway naming poll are trying to comeup with a Manual of Style that addresses most of the concerns of Principle II supporters while keeping in line with the decision by the majorit to use the style of Principle I in the article title. This is being done at WP:USSH. I am under the impression that Lar and a few others think this is disruption. We are trying to gain real consensus by addressing specific problems with the chosen Principle without overturning it. I strongly believe that is not disruption. I hope most of thr ArbCom agrees. -- Polaron | Talk 16:33, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Would it be acceptable to the ArbCom if the members of this entire debate just sat down and had a civil conversation, and reached a virtually unanimous agreement on a compromise? They seem to be on track to do this now, but some are raising concerns about being outside of the process of the naming conventions poll, and that the judges of said poll have already ruled that there is a consensus. Personally, I don't think that matters, because it's always good to have more people agree, so there's no harm in having more discussion. At worst, it's just more incivil discussion and you won't be able to tell it apart from the rest anyway, but it doesn't seem to be heading that way, and is currently being rather productive. What does the ArbCom think? -- Rory096 16:38, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
What would the proceedure be for getting off probation? There were four users placed on probation, SPUI, PHenry, JohnnyBGood, and myself. SPUI did have some run-ins at WP:SRNC, but has left. PHenry has not edited since the conclusion of the case. JohnnyBGood has drifted away from highway articles a bit, editing other articles. (but in effect not doing any mass moves). I started WP:SRNC, and the poll has concluded, and mass moves are being done to move the pages to the agreed upon locations. -- Rschen7754 ( talk - contribs) 22:26, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm told this is the appropriate place to come for this appeal. In July, I was placed on probation as part of the decision in this RfA. I do not believe this decision was just, and I have chosen not to participate as an editor at Wikipedia rather than continue editing while subject to an unjust probation. In the nearly four months since that decision, I believe, subsequent events have demonstrated rather starkly that arbitrator Fred Bauder's initial assessment of the cause of the dispute was correct, and that JohnnyBGood, Rschen7754, and I should never have been placed on probation in relation to this matter. In addition, the underlying dispute has been harmoniously resolved, which suggests that the need for probation, assuming such need ever existed in the first place, has now ended. Accordingly, I request that this probation be formally lifted. Thank you. — phh ( t/ c) 01:03, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Um, I'm right here in case anyone had wondered. I just blanked my talk page and userpage :) JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 01:21, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
WP:RFAR/HWY was an arbitration case that placed me on probation in relation to highways articles because of a naming dispute that got ugly. However, not only have I refrained from disrupting the highways articles (except for one controversial block many months ago), but I have made over 13000 edits since that time. The naming dispute has also been satisfactorily resolved at WP:SRNC. Page moves have taken place, and there is peace at the highways section of Wikipedia. I have been influential in building the project infastructure ( WP:USRD/NEWS, massive assessment of articles, infobox changes at WP:CASH, and much more). Thus, not as a license to disrupt articles, which I would not do under any circumstances, but as the removal of a blotch on my Wikipedia reputation, I am requesting the removal of my probation on Wikipedia. (Please make this motion separate from the other highways request below). -- Rschen7754 ( talk - contribs) 05:03, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
In July of last year I was placed on probation as part of the decision in this RfA. I do not believe this decision was just, and I believe that the unusual indefinite length of this probation despite the fact that I have never been a disruptive editor and that no evidence was ever presented against me is arbitrary and unfair. Accordingly, I've chosen to abandon this account in the meantime rather than to tacitly accept the legitimacy of this unjust probation by continuing to edit with it. In October I sought to have this probation lifted but, perversely, my appeal was rejected because I hadn't been editing in the meantime. However, since that time I have been editing without incident as An Innocent Man, and I believe my contribution history there continues to demonstrate that I am not now, nor have I ever been, a disruptive user--and, incidentally, it should be noted that I have not been editing any of the articles I'm putatively enjoined from "disrupting," nor do I have even the slightest shred of a shadow of a desire to ever do so again as long as I live. I would therefore like to ask once again that this unjust probation be lifted.
I am familiar with the rules governing the use of alternate accounts, and I believe my use of this one falls within the bounds of acceptability. I only created it because the thought of using my normal account while I am subject to an unjust probation sickens me. My only intent here is to clear my good name. — phh ( t/ c) 13:16, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Rschen7754 ( talk · contribs) and PHenry ( talk · contribs) have appealed their continued probation in the Highways case. I believe that their continued probation is not necessary and move to end it forthwith. Matthew Brown (Morven) ( T: C) 13:50, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Will this then apply to all parties in that case who were assigned probation? It seems to me that we should treat all the same unless there are circumstances mandating differential treatment. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 01:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Highways was an arbitration case that placed me on probation in relation to highways articles because of a naming dispute that got ugly and out of hand. However since that time (9 months ago) I've made over 1000 contributions and edits to the project without any blocks or bans levied against me in that time. Nor have I disrupted or attempted to disrupt any articles, hwy related or otherwise. Page moves have taken place per a consensus that was developed out of this arbitration case, and there is peace at the highways section of Wikipedia. I would like to get this block lifted so as to clean my record and allow me to contribute with a clean slate as I would like to continue my contributions to hwy articles. Also I'd point out that the other two active users who were put on probation have also had theirs lifted as well and they had incurred blocks during they probation period [4], something which I did not have against me. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 21:00, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
User:JohnnyBGood has requested the same relief from probation as granted to User:Rschen7754 and User:PHenry. I am inclined to grant it. I am not inclined to extend such relief to User:SPUI, based on repeated violations of the probation, but I also wish to propose that restrictions on SPUI terminate twelve months after his last probation violation.
Support:
Oppose:
Abstain: