Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Highways

message: : Moved here from main page
::I request that  be added to this case as a named party. He has moved more than a hundred pages related to Washington state highways based upon his unilateral interpretation of what the "correct" article names should be, despite multiple admins warning that moving these pages pending the resolution of this dispute is a blockable offense. His edit summary seems to indicate that he believes that this is some sort of game, the object of which is to "pwn" whoever he's determined his enemies to be. —phh (t/c) 18:48, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Can I add myself to this case?  I haven't move warred, but I'm involved in the Washington State Highway WikiProject, and I'd really like to do anything I could to get this out of the way ASAP. -- Northenglish 00:26, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

text: That was in short what I was thinking ArbCom would do in this case.  Placing sanctions on any of the parties involved does not make much sense, I offered to do this in a non formal non ArbCom situation and it was rejected, hence it came here.  I don't think a conduct case makes much sense here and would be a waste of ArbCom's time, I just want some way of stopping the move warring so we don't have to go through it all again -- Tawker 02:29, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

text: As much as I'd assume the ArbCom is smart and would pick the correct naming, I don't like the possibility of the wrong one being chosen. That's probably one reason the ArbCom doesn't get involved in content disputes - it would have to apply to all editors to be worth anything. Thus, even if the four of us, or everyone currently in this dispute, agreed to make it binding, that's not going to keep someone in the future from moving them. --SPUI (T - C - RFC) 01:50, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "I don't like the possibility of the wrong one being chosen." I think that pretty much says it all, honestly. --phh (t/c) 03:07, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

text: We avoid content disputes (emphasis on the word content) because we are not a panel of experts. That is to say, we lack the expertise to determine if a given sentence or paragraph is true, false, mistated, 'etc. On the other hand, it does not take a panel of experts to decide what the naming scheme should be. Raul654 18:12, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

text: This seems reasonable, and I think SPUI could do a good job at explaining the situation. Though, like SPUI, I also have reservations about the binding nature of any decision like this. —Locke Cole • t • c 03:20, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I would be amenable to either approach, and offer to help JohnnyBGood create his explanation if he likes. --phh (t/c) 15:57, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with either approach. JohnnyBGood t c 18:53, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Yup. I think that someone else should give the argument though. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  18:01, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Who would you suggest? --phh (t/c) 02:09, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Could we have a temporary ban on moving state highway pages until this is resolved? (For all parties involved) --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  18:07, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

text: As per an AN discussion (its somewhere in the archives) move warring is a blockable offence, no need for an official ArbCom ruling IMHO -- Tawker 20:20, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would agree, if SPUI and myself hadn't been unblocked repeatedly for move warring after only 15 minutes. I think in this case we need it clearly spelled out until this arbcom is complete.JohnnyBGood t c 17:27, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's what I thought too, until Locke Cole complained. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  21:15, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Who are "all parties"? If it's anything less than everyone who edits these articles or may in the future, it won't have any lasting effect. And if it is actually all parties, good luck finding them all. --SPUI (T - C - RFC) 12:38, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: All parties are everyone named in this dispute. You, me, Rschen, Phenry, and anyone else involved in move warring. If anyone persists in the future we can point back to this arbcom's ruling and revert. If any new party persists after being warned there are channels for dealing with it including WP:AN/I. I think it is imperative we get outside arbitration on this... otherwise the move war will not come to a close because neither side has shown any willingness to compromise any further. I know arbcom doesn't usually mediate conflicts about style or content, but this is an exceptional case that has involved what is now a 3 month war that has just escalated in veritol and intensity. JohnnyBGood t c 17:26, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

text: And the hits just keep on coming. —phh (t/c) 17:43, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Other comments

message: 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  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.
*2006-03-31 05:03:31 – Rschen7754 demonstrates his involvement in the content dispute.
*2006-03-31 06:24:30 – Rschen7754 reverts  to his preferred names with the edit summary rv to version that does not link to 100 redirects.
*2006-03-31 06:33:30 – Rschen7754 threatens me with a block for moving (renaming) pages to names he doesn't prefer, citing WP:ANI as "stating" that "any mass moves of highway pages are grounds for being blocked". He finishes with: "Move any more pages and you will be blocked."
*2006-03-31 06:45:07 – Rschen7754 blocks me with the reason per WP:ANI- user was mass moving road pages with no consensus, was warned explicitly.
*2006-03-31 06:47:21 – Rschen7754 leaves a note saying he blocked me claiming it is unbiased.
*2006-03-31 06:58:21 – Rschen7754 offers to unblock if I promise not to move pages away from his preferred names "until this is resolved".
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)
thread_title:  Statement by [[User:Locke Cole|Locke Cole]] 

message: 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)
replies: text: That was in short what I was thinking ArbCom would do in this case.  Placing sanctions on any of the parties involved does not make much sense, I offered to do this in a non formal non ArbCom situation and it was rejected, hence it came here.  I don't think a conduct case makes much sense here and would be a waste of ArbCom's time, I just want some way of stopping the move warring so we don't have to go through it all again -- Tawker 02:29, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

text: As much as I'd assume the ArbCom is smart and would pick the correct naming, I don't like the possibility of the wrong one being chosen. That's probably one reason the ArbCom doesn't get involved in content disputes - it would have to apply to all editors to be worth anything. Thus, even if the four of us, or everyone currently in this dispute, agreed to make it binding, that's not going to keep someone in the future from moving them. --SPUI (T - C - RFC) 01:50, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "I don't like the possibility of the wrong one being chosen." I think that pretty much says it all, honestly. --phh (t/c) 03:07, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

text: We avoid content disputes (emphasis on the word content) because we are not a panel of experts. That is to say, we lack the expertise to determine if a given sentence or paragraph is true, false, mistated, 'etc. On the other hand, it does not take a panel of experts to decide what the naming scheme should be. Raul654 18:12, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

text: This seems reasonable, and I think SPUI could do a good job at explaining the situation. Though, like SPUI, I also have reservations about the binding nature of any decision like this. —Locke Cole • t • c 03:20, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I would be amenable to either approach, and offer to help JohnnyBGood create his explanation if he likes. --phh (t/c) 15:57, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with either approach. JohnnyBGood t c 18:53, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Yup. I think that someone else should give the argument though. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  18:01, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Who would you suggest? --phh (t/c) 02:09, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Could we have a temporary ban on moving state highway pages until this is resolved? (For all parties involved) --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  18:07, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

text: As per an AN discussion (its somewhere in the archives) move warring is a blockable offence, no need for an official ArbCom ruling IMHO -- Tawker 20:20, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would agree, if SPUI and myself hadn't been unblocked repeatedly for move warring after only 15 minutes. I think in this case we need it clearly spelled out until this arbcom is complete.JohnnyBGood t c 17:27, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's what I thought too, until Locke Cole complained. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  21:15, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Who are "all parties"? If it's anything less than everyone who edits these articles or may in the future, it won't have any lasting effect. And if it is actually all parties, good luck finding them all. --SPUI (T - C - RFC) 12:38, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: All parties are everyone named in this dispute. You, me, Rschen, Phenry, and anyone else involved in move warring. If anyone persists in the future we can point back to this arbcom's ruling and revert. If any new party persists after being warned there are channels for dealing with it including WP:AN/I. I think it is imperative we get outside arbitration on this... otherwise the move war will not come to a close because neither side has shown any willingness to compromise any further. I know arbcom doesn't usually mediate conflicts about style or content, but this is an exceptional case that has involved what is now a 3 month war that has just escalated in veritol and intensity. JohnnyBGood t c 17:26, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

text: And the hits just keep on coming. —phh (t/c) 17:43, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by Raul654 

message: 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)
thread_title: Temp injunction?

message: 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)
thread_title: Question for James

message: 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)
replies: text: I've given some advice on presentation to User:JohnnyBGood, a participant, but made it clear that I am not acting as a clerk. --Tony Sidaway 22:53, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Clerk recusal

message: 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)
thread_title: Contact

message: *User:Nohat, see [ U.S. Route 101]
*User:Gateman1997, see WP:RFC/SPUI.
*User:Lbmixpro, see [ move log].
*User:Locke Cole (if he's around), see [ move log]. 
— Jun. 2, '06 [00:49] <[ freak]|[ talk]>
::Agreed. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  22:51, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  other possibly involved parties. 

message: and  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)
thread_title: Additional edit warring

message: 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)
replies: text: Update 6/15/2006: Well starting on the 17th my Internet connection will go downhill (due to a vacation with a Windows 98 computer and AOL). I won't even try to edit unless there's an emergency for 6 weeks or so. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  04:52, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Break

message: 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<BR>
State Route 704 (Washington); 05:40 . . SPUI (talk | contribs) (cleanup) <BR>
State Route 167 (Washington); 05:17 . . SPUI (talk | contribs) (cleanup) <BR>
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)
replies: text: As far as I know, no official temporary injunction has been approved thus far.  HOWEVER: The edits you cite are against Wikipedia:Redirect guidelines: "Some editors are tempted, upon finding links using a legitimate redirect target, to edit the page to 'fix' the link so that it points 'straight' at the 'correct' page. Unless the link displays incorrectly—for instance, if the link is to a misspelling, or if the hint that appears when you hover over the link is misleading—there is no need to edit the link." -- Northenglish (talk) -- 21:50, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ummm... hello there? --SPUI (T - C) 22:01, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, and what am I supposed to be looking at, now that you've linked me to my own evidence? -- Northenglish (talk) -- 22:36, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The reason I did this bloody cleanup - you told me to! --SPUI (T - C) 01:03, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not cleanup, that's pointless editing around a redirect.  The cleanup was to match the bolded text in the first line of the article with the article title.  It doesn't make a difference what the link points to when there's already a piped alternative. -- Northenglish (talk) -- 07:05, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I only did it in articles that had "Washington State Route" in the article text. --SPUI (T - C) 18:03, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: On hold?

message: 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)
replies: text: I'd have to agree with SPUI here. There's a presumption among parties that arbcom will rule on the content dispute; that would be wholly out of character and unhelpful. However, said parties aren't going to try and resolve the dispute until the case ends. Some arbitrator needs to come down here and say that real loud right now. Mackensen (talk) 02:32, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm curious as to why people recently have been claiming that "there's a presumption among parties that arbcom will rule on the content dispute."  While this is clearly rooted in a content/style issue, it hasn't been a content dispute for quite some time.  The vast majority of the evidence and conversation in this case deals with policy, such as moving against/without seeking consensus, edit warring/3RR, and especially today, no personal attacks. -- Northenglish (talk) -- 07:30, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but the important thing is that the content issue be resolved. All this dispute between users is worrisome, but even if all these "policy" violations are arbitrated the root issue remains. Mackensen (talk) 11:50, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe the point is that the content issue can't be resolved until the policy/behavior issues are addressed. Would that it were not so. I've stated many times that I believe the vast majority of participants in this disaster, regardless of which "side" they're on, would be able to reach a quick and harmonious resolution were it not for the actions of a minority that is determined to frustrate any efforts to reach consensus. —phh (t/c) 16:18, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. -- Northenglish (talk) -- 17:52, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I'll have to both agree and disagree. I don't think addressing user's actions alone will solve this one. SPUI isn't alone on his side of the issue and we're not alone on our side of the issue. And it's pretty obvious that any misconduct has roots in the fact that there is no established style here. The style and user actions should all be addressed as one I think if we're going to do anything toward users. JohnnyBGood  t c VIVA! 19:20, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

text: When the arbcom agreed to accept this case, many of the accepting arbitrators made it clear that they were only accepting to resolve the policy and user conduct areas.  For my part, certainly, I consider the underlying content dispute outside the arbitration committee's remit, and will not be attempting to resolve it.  Resolving the dispute - speedily, and with due concern for policy - is the job of the disputants, NOT the arbcom. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 18:12, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: More involvement needed by ArbCom

message: 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)
replies: text: I for one would be happy to accept it and help enforce it. —phh (t/c) 13:50, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If it's unbiased (perhaps looked after by an arbitrator or something or a mediator) I'd support it. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  18:40, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Why not give it a proposed policy page and link to it from the individual wikiprojects, and US ROADS. JohnnyBGood  t c VIVA! 16:36, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not a proposed policy. --SPUI (T - C) 17:41, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Proposed guideline then? All we really need is a centralized page that states that a. states that it is the centralized page and b. that it supercedes all previous discussions, votes, polls, arguments, and move wars. JohnnyBGood  t c VIVA! 18:00, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Where to discuss this?

message: 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:
:When there is another word (such as Cheque instead of Check) or more complete name that is equally clear (such as Titan rocket), that should be used.
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)
thread_title:  Important announcement from [[User:Northenglish]] 

message: ===Highways===
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)
replies: text: It looks like you are worrying over semantics here. Uncontroversial moves should not be contested, and won't get anybody in trouble. There is a difference from moving something to the correct name and moning something to the preferred convention. That doesn't mean anyone can move to their preferred convention and say it's okay because it's the real name, but Route 69 and Route 31 are not variations of eath other, whereas a move from Route 31 to State Route 31, or Route 31 (State), or whatever, would be a violation. Dmcdevit·t 18:58, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't understand the last sentence. If someone makes an article at simply "Route 31", which should obviously be a disambiguation page (and it is in this case), what should I do? --SPUI (T - C) 19:06, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure what the confusion is here, but I think maybe that it is that the part of the ruling you quote comes from the enforcement. Take a look at the remedy section where the controversial moves are prohibited (Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Highways#Controversial_moves): "Until a formal naming convention policy regarding state highways is reached, no page shall be moved from one controversial name to another". I think that is clear and answers your question. Dmcdevit·t 19:47, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK - so I can move Route 31 to Route 31 (State), as everyone agrees that Route 31 should be a disambiguation page, so its current location is not controversial? --SPUI (T - C) 20:14, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If this is so, can someone please edit the enforcement to reflect this? --SPUI (T - C) 07:55, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

text: An appeal is likely to do little. --SPUI (T - C) 12:07, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Probation is indefinite. Fred Bauder 12:20, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Can it be appealled in the future or as SPUI says are we pretty much SOL? --JohnnyBGood 00:21, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You can appeal whenever you want, but you will only be successful if you can demonstrate some new development that will make us change our minds. That may be a while from now. Dmcdevit·t 18:58, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Speaking purely for myself, I'd say that the Committee can only urge the community to seek a policy solution to the question of highway naming.  The community may well have good reasons to reject this.  In which case, you'd probably all better be extra careful about moves, and make sure you don't make any controversial name changes. --Tony Sidaway 10:48, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for clarification copied from [[WP:RFAR]] 

message: 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)
replies: text: It looks like you are worrying over semantics here. Uncontroversial moves should not be contested, and won't get anybody in trouble. There is a difference from moving something to the correct name and moning something to the preferred convention. That doesn't mean anyone can move to their preferred convention and say it's okay because it's the real name, but Route 69 and Route 31 are not variations of eath other, whereas a move from Route 31 to State Route 31, or Route 31 (State), or whatever, would be a violation. Dmcdevit·t 18:58, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't understand the last sentence. If someone makes an article at simply "Route 31", which should obviously be a disambiguation page (and it is in this case), what should I do? --SPUI (T - C) 19:06, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure what the confusion is here, but I think maybe that it is that the part of the ruling you quote comes from the enforcement. Take a look at the remedy section where the controversial moves are prohibited (Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Highways#Controversial_moves): "Until a formal naming convention policy regarding state highways is reached, no page shall be moved from one controversial name to another". I think that is clear and answers your question. Dmcdevit·t 19:47, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK - so I can move Route 31 to Route 31 (State), as everyone agrees that Route 31 should be a disambiguation page, so its current location is not controversial? --SPUI (T - C) 20:14, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If this is so, can someone please edit the enforcement to reflect this? --SPUI (T - C) 07:55, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

text: An appeal is likely to do little. --SPUI (T - C) 12:07, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Probation is indefinite. Fred Bauder 12:20, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Can it be appealled in the future or as SPUI says are we pretty much SOL? --JohnnyBGood 00:21, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You can appeal whenever you want, but you will only be successful if you can demonstrate some new development that will make us change our minds. That may be a while from now. Dmcdevit·t 18:58, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Speaking purely for myself, I'd say that the Committee can only urge the community to seek a policy solution to the question of highway naming.  The community may well have good reasons to reject this.  In which case, you'd probably all better be extra careful about moves, and make sure you don't make any controversial name changes. --Tony Sidaway 10:48, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Highways

message: 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)
thread_title: Page moves

message: 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)
replies: text: Your side has 41%, which is definitely not consensus for your side. Also, we have to have some convention. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  06:22, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's no consensus, thus no convention. --SPUI (T - C) 06:27, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Back to self-law. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  06:29, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This a case which failed, specifically failed to adequately deal with the problem of SPUI's behavior. It should probably be reopened. Fred Bauder 13:36, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I feel that we've just avoided nuclear war. There is relative peace at highways for now, but if SPUI's behavior does not change, a further arbcom case could be inevitable. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  18:21, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

text: There is a split in the Arbitration Committee on this question. Only one arbitrator, me, supports coming down heavy on SPUI. It will take a few more months of disruption before the rest will come around. Fred Bauder 16:18, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

text: A couple of points in response. First, I think it would be best if I got a unified response from the whole committee, although I value your input! But if I get mixed yes/nos it may not be as helpful as a more definitive answer. Second, I'm not anti SPUI. And I'm not advocating that we "come down heavy on SPUI". Or anyone else. I just want to get to a resolution. Third, to the points raised elsewhere about new spirits of consensus, and does that contravene what I said about more new proposals being not helpful... well if everyone previously blocking working to a solution shifts, and with some compromise, everyone comes to a consensual acceptance of whatever state of affairs works for most everyone... great! That would be awesome, trust me when I say I would love to see that more than anyone. But if this lull goes back to disruptive behaviour, then I will seek to apply remedies. Hence my seeking clarification, even if the lull apparently continues, I don't want to (or whoever shouldn't have to) come back here later because I (or whoever) don't have what is needed. OK that was three things. :) ++Lar: t/c 18:24, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I do not view creating a style guide to help people edit, and that helps them apply the accepted principle rationally, as "disruption", rather I find it highly useful. What I find disruptive is tagging an early stage proposal as a guide rather than a proposal. I think that's fixed though. Once the highway people reach clear consensus that it's accepted and that it's the way that people should edit I'd welcome it moving to style guide in state and getting added to the list of style guides in effect. ++Lar: t/c 19:08, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

text: The state of affairs on Wikipedia is such that when we say consensus, we can't mean complete agreement among all parties. Our processes like AfD, RfA, and others, instead, have lowered the standard to a norm that the community sees as acceptable. Therefore, a bureaucrat can promote an administrator or an administrator can delete a page even with dissenters, provided that the amount of dissent is within that community standard. This is not the strict definition of consensus, but Wikipedia-brand consensus. Under that system, it is possible to identify this 59% vote as "consensus" provided that the community (especially administrators) is willing to enforce it. Especially in light of the fact that arbitrary decisions are better than indecision, I believe that we ought to do so; if we enforce it, it's as god as done. While there is no reason to stifle productive discussion and comprommise, I'm fairly certain that the community, as well, is at the point of enforcing the result of the poll as the less disruptive of the available options, in an effort to end the agony of this debate. Dmcdevit·t 22:48, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Moved from RFAr main page: Clarifications

message: 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:
* ArbCom does not normally get involved in content disputes, but chose to in this case to try to get to closure on what had been a source of much contention and ill will.
* ArbCom in their finding said "consensus is encouraged"... I interpret that as "== consensus is NOT REQUIRED" meaning that if consensus cannot be achieved, othre means should be used. IS this a correct interpretation of ArbCom's wishes in this matter
* There has been a long process of evaluation of alternatives and after some discussion, a majority vote was held on principles. one principle won, with 59%. It is not our norm to accept majority votes as binding (see Polling is evil).
* I perceive The majority of participants seem to have arrived at a consensus to accept the majority, this once, without necessarily being happy about it, or thinking that this means we are changing general principles. IS this perception correct? If so, does ArbCom endorse it as a principle in this matter?
**It is rather clear that the main troublemaker, SPUI, is not of this view and wishes to continue his campaign of disruption. I would focus on those who view failure to achieve consensus as a victory. Fred Bauder 16:18, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a split in the Arbitration Committee on this question. Only one arbitrator, me, supports coming down heavy on SPUI. It will take a few more months of disruption before the rest will come around. Fred Bauder 16:18, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

text: A couple of points in response. First, I think it would be best if I got a unified response from the whole committee, although I value your input! But if I get mixed yes/nos it may not be as helpful as a more definitive answer. Second, I'm not anti SPUI. And I'm not advocating that we "come down heavy on SPUI". Or anyone else. I just want to get to a resolution. Third, to the points raised elsewhere about new spirits of consensus, and does that contravene what I said about more new proposals being not helpful... well if everyone previously blocking working to a solution shifts, and with some compromise, everyone comes to a consensual acceptance of whatever state of affairs works for most everyone... great! That would be awesome, trust me when I say I would love to see that more than anyone. But if this lull goes back to disruptive behaviour, then I will seek to apply remedies. Hence my seeking clarification, even if the lull apparently continues, I don't want to (or whoever shouldn't have to) come back here later because I (or whoever) don't have what is needed. OK that was three things. :) ++Lar: t/c 18:24, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I do not view creating a style guide to help people edit, and that helps them apply the accepted principle rationally, as "disruption", rather I find it highly useful. What I find disruptive is tagging an early stage proposal as a guide rather than a proposal. I think that's fixed though. Once the highway people reach clear consensus that it's accepted and that it's the way that people should edit I'd welcome it moving to style guide in state and getting added to the list of style guides in effect. ++Lar: t/c 19:08, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

text: The state of affairs on Wikipedia is such that when we say consensus, we can't mean complete agreement among all parties. Our processes like AfD, RfA, and others, instead, have lowered the standard to a norm that the community sees as acceptable. Therefore, a bureaucrat can promote an administrator or an administrator can delete a page even with dissenters, provided that the amount of dissent is within that community standard. This is not the strict definition of consensus, but Wikipedia-brand consensus. Under that system, it is possible to identify this 59% vote as "consensus" provided that the community (especially administrators) is willing to enforce it. Especially in light of the fact that arbitrary decisions are better than indecision, I believe that we ought to do so; if we enforce it, it's as god as done. While there is no reason to stifle productive discussion and comprommise, I'm fairly certain that the community, as well, is at the point of enforcing the result of the poll as the less disruptive of the available options, in an effort to end the agony of this debate. Dmcdevit·t 22:48, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Specific Highways clarification request

message: 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)
replies: text: Motion made at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration.2FHighways.23Probation. Fred Bauder 20:48, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In response to the points below: a) JohnnyBGood just left the project, leaving at least a few months of good behavior behind him (from July until now). b) My block was controversial, but if my probation is not lifted for a while because of it I will understand; however it should not reflect poorly on the other editors. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 00:31, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Highways]] - request reexamination of probation ruling

message: 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 , something which I did not have against me. JohnnyBGood  t c VIVA! 21:00, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have made a motion on your behalf as you should be able to see below.  A clarification: User:PHenry did not violate probation either, to my knowledge. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 07:15, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Clerk's notes: With 12 active arbitrators and one abstaining, the majority is 6. SPUI's last probation violation was 24 October 2006.  Thatcher131 17:39, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

text: # Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 07:12, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

text: # The Uninvited Co., Inc. 16:32, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

text: # Fred Bauder 17:39, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

text: # I don't see a problem with this now. Flcelloguy (A note?) 21:01, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

text: # Charles Matthews 15:33, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

text: # FloNight 23:17, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

text: # Sure. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:58, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

text: # Paul August ☎ 00:08, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Appeal of probation in [[WP:RFAR/HWY]] 

message: 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.
:Clerk's notes: With 12 active arbitrators and one abstaining, the majority is 6. SPUI's last probation violation was 24 October 2006.  Thatcher131 17:39, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: # Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 07:12, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

text: # The Uninvited Co., Inc. 16:32, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

text: # Fred Bauder 17:39, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

text: # I don't see a problem with this now. Flcelloguy (A note?) 21:01, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

text: # Charles Matthews 15:33, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

text: # FloNight 23:17, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

text: # Sure. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:58, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

text: # Paul August ☎ 00:08, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Further motion in [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Highways]]