I disagree strongly with the proposed injunction. Just looking through my move log:
Also, for moves that are within the expected scope (state highways), I recently moved most Pennsylvania and Michigan routes, in accordance with discussion on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pennsylvania State Highways and Talk:List of highways in Michigan. A little while ago, I was asked to move Illinois ( Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Illinois State Routes) - this is repetitive work, and Rob couldn't find a bot to do it.
While this injunction may prevent move wars, it will also prevent legitimate moves and encourage copy-paste moving. -- SPUI ( T - C) 12:38, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
I'd suggest that the injunction be scoped to include copy-and-paste behaviour, as being the same thing, by worse means. (I'd certainly proactively interpret it that way, unless I'm pressed not to.) OTOH, an "affirmative defence" that the page-move was uncontroversial would be sensible (and again, how I'd interpret it in any case). If that's too vague, then discuss beforehand, and/or ask a "non-party" to make the move. Alai 16:53, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
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)
Needless to say, my quotes are being taken out of context slightly. That being said, SPUI putting this here, where only arbitrators are allowed to edit, rather than the Workshop, is further proof that he has little respect for Wikipedia process. -- Northenglish 00:41, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Going from:
to:
seems like a bit of a leap to me. Every highway has an official name and should be titled as such. The general public is liable to call it anything. Alternate names in wide enough use are suitable candidates for redirects. I would recommend striking the underlined portion, unless we can cite evidence to support it, and even then, it should be clarified as to which state(s) we have noted for being wishy-washy in the terminology used by their own "official agencies", otherwise this finding of fact contains an unhealthy dose of original research. — Jun. 9, '06 [14:22] < freak| talk>
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)
The problem with this is that the original name is arbitrary. State Route 2 (California) is there because it was there when it was listed on RM. If it had been at California State Route 2, it would still be there, as there was no consensus. -- SPUI ( T - C) 01:02, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
By the way, I urge everyone to read Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Highways/Workshop#The effect of an article title. -- SPUI ( T - C) 01:02, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
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)
Ok, I see the problem. If something passes we need to consider the ambiguity this language causes. Fred Bauder 20:27, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
I thought I'd register an opinion here, as unwelcome as it might be, and as irrelevant as the Arbitration Committee might consider it. The fact is, I don't like:
User:SPUI would, no doubt, be the first to admit that he can act like a complete and utter idiot at times, borderline troll and general irritation. However, he does an invaluable amount of work on Wikipedia, and is a productive editor, whether or not his interaction with other users is as clean as we'd all like. He doesn't suffer fools and he doesn't fuck about when it comes to trying to improve our articles. Call it roadcruft, or call it unencyclopaedic, but it's productive editing.
Now, I see him being treated as if he's in the wrong over a matter which boils down to factual accuracy. Maybe he's wrong, maybe the other party is wrong. It's pretty germane either way, since if the wrong choice is made, then we can undo it, right? Wrong. The current conclusions of this case seem to state that User:SPUI is wrong with respect to the naming of a set of articles, and leaves no scope to acknowledge the converse. It also seems, as I read it, to leave no avenue for his methods to become the "correct" route, should it be later discovered that his naming conventions were more appropriate; he will, I envisage, be shouted down and suppressed. For attempting to improve. I don't like the prospect of that.
This case, of course, hands an editorial decision over to semi-elected group of users who, previously, had no power to make decisions pertaining to content disputes and still should have no power. What this is, to me, is tantamount to telling User:SPUI that his contributions in a particular field were wrong, that user X is correct, and that he should sod off and defer to another. This violates one of our core tenets; while it might not be one of the absolute, immutable policies, consensus and discussion, however prolonged, is how we deal with controversies.
The reason the Committee had, and should still have, no special power to determine the outcome of a content dispute is also linked to their lack of specialisation. As demonstrated with at least one clarification above, User:SPUI has a flair for knowing this sort of stuff, even if he sometimes goes about pushing that flair in people's faces a bit much. The Committee have demonstrated and confessed a lack of knowledge in the field. It shouldn't even think it has the right to force an uninformed opinion in this matter.
So we're not arguing over a bunch of offensive cartoons or a picture of someone's dick on the web. But you still want to bring down the hammer? I'm appalled, and worried for the future direction of the project. robchurch | talk 19:49, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
The section above alone shows how pointless it is for the Committee to resolve a content dispute through enforcing "X is right and Y is wrong". robchurch | talk 11:57, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
A propensity everybody has. You still decided to pick one content form over another. At what point did Sir Jimbo decide to grant content control to the arbitrators? robchurch | talk 16:02, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Should we be accepting a finding of fact with "allegedly" in it? - brenneman {L} 02:09, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
I agree wholeheartedly with many of the proposals recently added by Dmcdevit, particularly Controversial moves. Well before I had read this, I proposed the same on WP:WASH, even though in the vast majority of cases, this would work against my preferred naming convention. -- Northenglish ( talk) -- 07:03, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
If I am to be included in any probationary measures, I request that any arbitrators who vote for such a remedy explain what, if any, evidence has been presented against me that influenced their decision. Even after I made a specific request for evidence of any bad acts I've committed, [3] the only time I've even mentioned on the Evidence or Workshop pages is one instance in which I characterized SPUI's page moves as being akin to vandalism, [4] a characterization I subsequently retracted after reviewing the relevant policy. [5] Other than that, no one has presented any evidence against me at all.
My position is that I have responded to SPUI's page moves every time by seeking advice and assistance at WP:AN/I, rather than by reflexively warring with him; have only reverted SPUI's moves on a small number of occasions after being confronted with clear and convincing evidence of overwhelming administrator indifference to any such moves; and that I stopped moving pages entirely after an admin asked me to disengage from the move war as a unilateral gesture of conciliation. I can provide diffs to prove all of these things on request. — phh ( t/ c) 20:12, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Is there a reason the minimum block is so high? -- SPUI ( T - C) 09:39, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Regarding parenthetical disambiguation: "but their use is often discouraged, as a great many find them an ugly intrusion." This is a personal opinion with a handful of weasel words, and hardly representative of actual disambiguation guidelines/practices. I've requested that this be modified to resemble reality, or better yet, removed, but was not taken seriously, I'm afraid ( User talk:Jdforrester#"a great many find them an ugly intrusion"). — Jun. 19, '06 [17:04] < freak| talk>
After much thought, I have to agree of Freakofnurture here. I haven't seen anything on any policy page, or even a non-policy page, stating that parentheses are discouraged. I would rather support the main Use of parenthesis for disambiguation principle, keeping in mind that it states "their use is not a required method". -- Northenglish ( talk) -- 20:03, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
I strongly would like to see the "controversial moves" proposal expanded to include controversial edits. This edit by SPUI and this one by Freakofnurture represent them continuing to enforce their non-consensus naming convention. This dispute goes beyond simply the page moves; edits like this (albeit on a larger scale) were why List of Washington State Routes was protected for two months. -- Northenglish ( talk) -- 20:15, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
I have to say I'm a little bit concerned about these proposed principles. I can even leave aside for a moment any potential problems with this being interpreted as allowing "make-up-rules-as-you-go-along" as well as any potential problems with those who can enforce the new made up rules. The real problem is that we are almost always on the side os status quo and this undermines that. We shouldn't make changes without a reason, but when we do in principle we have to stick to the changes? - brenneman {L} 06:23, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Would this be covered by this section? [6] JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 00:39, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
User:PHenry has recently left Wikipedia citing several reasons related to this Arbcom. While I disagree with his decision to leave, as well as many of his reasons, one issue he brings up must be fixed, especially since it was clearly an oversight. In the proposed Probation, Freakofnurture is not listed as one of the major move warriors, this despite the fact the he is listed as one in the finding of fact. Could one of the arbitrators please fix this oversight? -- Northenglish ( talk) -- 19:32, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
I'd suggest the phrase "This resolution by itself does not reflect negatively upon the parties mentioned here, but is a precaution." -- Rschen7754 ( talk - contribs) 22:52, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
The proposed decision (if that section passes) will place most of the parties on probation. As has been confirmed by Tony Sidaway in a conversation on IRC, this means that admins can block for anything and claim it was done under the probation, as the blocking admin can define disruption. As it is being done with implied ArbCom approval, whether such approval exists or not, other admins are less likely to unblock (and such unblocks may not be proper - see below). An earlier probation has recently resulted in a week-long block on me for a page I made over a year ago, and recent actions I took to save the code (mostly in comment tags, to avoid screwing up my user page) before deletion. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Today's SPUI blocking and [7] for details.
An earlier incident resulted in Tony Sidaway banning me from any page I had recently used the word "fuck" on. As above, disruption is in the eye of the blocking admin only. Tony also made it clear in that case that any unblock would not override the ban, and would be misleading in that I could still not "legally" edit according to Wikipedia:Banning policy. See User talk:SPUI#Edit summaries.
Thus, I dispute the appropriateness of the probation. It basically tells admins "look, here's someone you can block and get away with it". -- SPUI ( T - C) 11:12, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
I don't wish to involve myself with any specific issues on this aspect of the dispute, but let me make a couple of general statements. I am fully in favor of probation for all parties that move warred (including Freakofnurture re: above). However, I feel that provocative needs to be better defined in order to be fairly enforced. I cannot fathom why User:SPUI/jajaja would be considered provocative, nor can I fathom why his page moves relevant to this case would not be considered provocative (obviously they provoked some people). -- Northenglish ( talk) -- 22:46, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
"As long as the probation covers the non-consensus crap that happened with {{ routeboxca2}} at WT:CASH then it works for me. If we trust our admins then hopefully there won't be any problems. But if an admin decides to have a heyday and block for no worthy reason, then we're toast. But then because of that crooked admin Wikipedia would be toast anyway."
-Posted on behalf of Rschen by JohnnyBGood ( talk • contribs) 21:57, July 10, 2006 UTC
I disagree strongly with the proposed injunction. Just looking through my move log:
Also, for moves that are within the expected scope (state highways), I recently moved most Pennsylvania and Michigan routes, in accordance with discussion on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pennsylvania State Highways and Talk:List of highways in Michigan. A little while ago, I was asked to move Illinois ( Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Illinois State Routes) - this is repetitive work, and Rob couldn't find a bot to do it.
While this injunction may prevent move wars, it will also prevent legitimate moves and encourage copy-paste moving. -- SPUI ( T - C) 12:38, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
I'd suggest that the injunction be scoped to include copy-and-paste behaviour, as being the same thing, by worse means. (I'd certainly proactively interpret it that way, unless I'm pressed not to.) OTOH, an "affirmative defence" that the page-move was uncontroversial would be sensible (and again, how I'd interpret it in any case). If that's too vague, then discuss beforehand, and/or ask a "non-party" to make the move. Alai 16:53, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
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)
Needless to say, my quotes are being taken out of context slightly. That being said, SPUI putting this here, where only arbitrators are allowed to edit, rather than the Workshop, is further proof that he has little respect for Wikipedia process. -- Northenglish 00:41, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Going from:
to:
seems like a bit of a leap to me. Every highway has an official name and should be titled as such. The general public is liable to call it anything. Alternate names in wide enough use are suitable candidates for redirects. I would recommend striking the underlined portion, unless we can cite evidence to support it, and even then, it should be clarified as to which state(s) we have noted for being wishy-washy in the terminology used by their own "official agencies", otherwise this finding of fact contains an unhealthy dose of original research. — Jun. 9, '06 [14:22] < freak| talk>
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)
The problem with this is that the original name is arbitrary. State Route 2 (California) is there because it was there when it was listed on RM. If it had been at California State Route 2, it would still be there, as there was no consensus. -- SPUI ( T - C) 01:02, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
By the way, I urge everyone to read Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Highways/Workshop#The effect of an article title. -- SPUI ( T - C) 01:02, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
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)
Ok, I see the problem. If something passes we need to consider the ambiguity this language causes. Fred Bauder 20:27, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
I thought I'd register an opinion here, as unwelcome as it might be, and as irrelevant as the Arbitration Committee might consider it. The fact is, I don't like:
User:SPUI would, no doubt, be the first to admit that he can act like a complete and utter idiot at times, borderline troll and general irritation. However, he does an invaluable amount of work on Wikipedia, and is a productive editor, whether or not his interaction with other users is as clean as we'd all like. He doesn't suffer fools and he doesn't fuck about when it comes to trying to improve our articles. Call it roadcruft, or call it unencyclopaedic, but it's productive editing.
Now, I see him being treated as if he's in the wrong over a matter which boils down to factual accuracy. Maybe he's wrong, maybe the other party is wrong. It's pretty germane either way, since if the wrong choice is made, then we can undo it, right? Wrong. The current conclusions of this case seem to state that User:SPUI is wrong with respect to the naming of a set of articles, and leaves no scope to acknowledge the converse. It also seems, as I read it, to leave no avenue for his methods to become the "correct" route, should it be later discovered that his naming conventions were more appropriate; he will, I envisage, be shouted down and suppressed. For attempting to improve. I don't like the prospect of that.
This case, of course, hands an editorial decision over to semi-elected group of users who, previously, had no power to make decisions pertaining to content disputes and still should have no power. What this is, to me, is tantamount to telling User:SPUI that his contributions in a particular field were wrong, that user X is correct, and that he should sod off and defer to another. This violates one of our core tenets; while it might not be one of the absolute, immutable policies, consensus and discussion, however prolonged, is how we deal with controversies.
The reason the Committee had, and should still have, no special power to determine the outcome of a content dispute is also linked to their lack of specialisation. As demonstrated with at least one clarification above, User:SPUI has a flair for knowing this sort of stuff, even if he sometimes goes about pushing that flair in people's faces a bit much. The Committee have demonstrated and confessed a lack of knowledge in the field. It shouldn't even think it has the right to force an uninformed opinion in this matter.
So we're not arguing over a bunch of offensive cartoons or a picture of someone's dick on the web. But you still want to bring down the hammer? I'm appalled, and worried for the future direction of the project. robchurch | talk 19:49, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
The section above alone shows how pointless it is for the Committee to resolve a content dispute through enforcing "X is right and Y is wrong". robchurch | talk 11:57, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
A propensity everybody has. You still decided to pick one content form over another. At what point did Sir Jimbo decide to grant content control to the arbitrators? robchurch | talk 16:02, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Should we be accepting a finding of fact with "allegedly" in it? - brenneman {L} 02:09, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
I agree wholeheartedly with many of the proposals recently added by Dmcdevit, particularly Controversial moves. Well before I had read this, I proposed the same on WP:WASH, even though in the vast majority of cases, this would work against my preferred naming convention. -- Northenglish ( talk) -- 07:03, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
If I am to be included in any probationary measures, I request that any arbitrators who vote for such a remedy explain what, if any, evidence has been presented against me that influenced their decision. Even after I made a specific request for evidence of any bad acts I've committed, [3] the only time I've even mentioned on the Evidence or Workshop pages is one instance in which I characterized SPUI's page moves as being akin to vandalism, [4] a characterization I subsequently retracted after reviewing the relevant policy. [5] Other than that, no one has presented any evidence against me at all.
My position is that I have responded to SPUI's page moves every time by seeking advice and assistance at WP:AN/I, rather than by reflexively warring with him; have only reverted SPUI's moves on a small number of occasions after being confronted with clear and convincing evidence of overwhelming administrator indifference to any such moves; and that I stopped moving pages entirely after an admin asked me to disengage from the move war as a unilateral gesture of conciliation. I can provide diffs to prove all of these things on request. — phh ( t/ c) 20:12, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Is there a reason the minimum block is so high? -- SPUI ( T - C) 09:39, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Regarding parenthetical disambiguation: "but their use is often discouraged, as a great many find them an ugly intrusion." This is a personal opinion with a handful of weasel words, and hardly representative of actual disambiguation guidelines/practices. I've requested that this be modified to resemble reality, or better yet, removed, but was not taken seriously, I'm afraid ( User talk:Jdforrester#"a great many find them an ugly intrusion"). — Jun. 19, '06 [17:04] < freak| talk>
After much thought, I have to agree of Freakofnurture here. I haven't seen anything on any policy page, or even a non-policy page, stating that parentheses are discouraged. I would rather support the main Use of parenthesis for disambiguation principle, keeping in mind that it states "their use is not a required method". -- Northenglish ( talk) -- 20:03, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
I strongly would like to see the "controversial moves" proposal expanded to include controversial edits. This edit by SPUI and this one by Freakofnurture represent them continuing to enforce their non-consensus naming convention. This dispute goes beyond simply the page moves; edits like this (albeit on a larger scale) were why List of Washington State Routes was protected for two months. -- Northenglish ( talk) -- 20:15, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
I have to say I'm a little bit concerned about these proposed principles. I can even leave aside for a moment any potential problems with this being interpreted as allowing "make-up-rules-as-you-go-along" as well as any potential problems with those who can enforce the new made up rules. The real problem is that we are almost always on the side os status quo and this undermines that. We shouldn't make changes without a reason, but when we do in principle we have to stick to the changes? - brenneman {L} 06:23, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Would this be covered by this section? [6] JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 00:39, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
User:PHenry has recently left Wikipedia citing several reasons related to this Arbcom. While I disagree with his decision to leave, as well as many of his reasons, one issue he brings up must be fixed, especially since it was clearly an oversight. In the proposed Probation, Freakofnurture is not listed as one of the major move warriors, this despite the fact the he is listed as one in the finding of fact. Could one of the arbitrators please fix this oversight? -- Northenglish ( talk) -- 19:32, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
I'd suggest the phrase "This resolution by itself does not reflect negatively upon the parties mentioned here, but is a precaution." -- Rschen7754 ( talk - contribs) 22:52, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
The proposed decision (if that section passes) will place most of the parties on probation. As has been confirmed by Tony Sidaway in a conversation on IRC, this means that admins can block for anything and claim it was done under the probation, as the blocking admin can define disruption. As it is being done with implied ArbCom approval, whether such approval exists or not, other admins are less likely to unblock (and such unblocks may not be proper - see below). An earlier probation has recently resulted in a week-long block on me for a page I made over a year ago, and recent actions I took to save the code (mostly in comment tags, to avoid screwing up my user page) before deletion. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Today's SPUI blocking and [7] for details.
An earlier incident resulted in Tony Sidaway banning me from any page I had recently used the word "fuck" on. As above, disruption is in the eye of the blocking admin only. Tony also made it clear in that case that any unblock would not override the ban, and would be misleading in that I could still not "legally" edit according to Wikipedia:Banning policy. See User talk:SPUI#Edit summaries.
Thus, I dispute the appropriateness of the probation. It basically tells admins "look, here's someone you can block and get away with it". -- SPUI ( T - C) 11:12, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
I don't wish to involve myself with any specific issues on this aspect of the dispute, but let me make a couple of general statements. I am fully in favor of probation for all parties that move warred (including Freakofnurture re: above). However, I feel that provocative needs to be better defined in order to be fairly enforced. I cannot fathom why User:SPUI/jajaja would be considered provocative, nor can I fathom why his page moves relevant to this case would not be considered provocative (obviously they provoked some people). -- Northenglish ( talk) -- 22:46, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
"As long as the probation covers the non-consensus crap that happened with {{ routeboxca2}} at WT:CASH then it works for me. If we trust our admins then hopefully there won't be any problems. But if an admin decides to have a heyday and block for no worthy reason, then we're toast. But then because of that crooked admin Wikipedia would be toast anyway."
-Posted on behalf of Rschen by JohnnyBGood ( talk • contribs) 21:57, July 10, 2006 UTC