Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Highways/Proposed decision

message: Going from:
:"The usage of the terms "state highway", "state route", etc. may vary from country to country or even from state to state. In the United States, it is not uncommon for the general public to use different conventions even within a particular state." (State highway#Terminology)
to:
:"The form of the name of state highways varies from state to state, sometimes different forms are used within a state, even by official agencies"... (Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Highways/Proposed decision#Ambiguous terminology)
seems like a bit of a leap to me. Every highway has an official name and should be titled as such. The general public is liable to call it anything. Alternate names in wide enough use are suitable candidates for redirects. I would recommend striking the underlined portion, unless we can cite evidence to support it, and even then, it should be clarified as to which state(s) we have noted for being wishy-washy in the terminology used by their own "official agencies", otherwise this finding of fact contains an unhealthy dose of original research. — Jun. 9, '06 [14:22] <[ freak]|[ talk]>
:Actually we've found instances in many states where his statement is dead on. And there has been ample evidence presented prior that California is one of those states. JohnnyBGood  t c VIVA! 18:41, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Where is this evidence? State laws use Route X. Caltrans uses Route X or State Route X, the latter abbreviated SR X. Use of Highway X is on an informal basis only, and only in areas of the state where that is used by locals. --SPUI (T - C) 19:58, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How about all the evidence that's been brought previously that California's government uses both State Route X and California State Route X to refer to its roads? JohnnyBGood  t c VIVA! 22:25, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no such evidence. There are 110 results on the Caltrans site for "California State Route", most of which are on one area of their site - the Cal-NExUS reports (which do not even all use that any more - see the first result) - versus 31800 for "state route". --SPUI (T - C) 22:45, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section: Ambiguous terminology 

message: 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)
replies: text: Well, if your sock says "Route 2" don't argue. The point is, one system is as good as another. No point in constantly arguing about it. Fred Bauder 23:30, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: One system is not as good as another - see my evidence and proposed principle "the effect of an article title". --SPUI (T - C) 23:56, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "SPUI shall defer to other users should a dispute arise regarding the name of a highway. This applies to disputes with either individuals or groups of editors."

message: 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)
replies: text: I urge everyone to read SPUI's "effect of an article title" is a fallacy.  Although I know I don't have to urge you, because everyone here is going to read everything regarding this case. -- Northenglish 21:13, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "If consensus fails to be achieved the standard Requested moves process should be begun, and the results of that process will determine what page names are accepted."

message: 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)
replies: text: A main road, as opposed to a byway. Highway is unchanged from Old English. Fred Bauder 23:12, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So if a numbered state highway is actually a one-block alley, the decision doesn't apply, but it does apply to articles like Lincoln Highway? --SPUI (T - C) 15:01, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Clarification

message: *Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Highways/Proposed_decision#Locus_of_dispute
Should we be accepting a finding of fact with "allegedly" in it? - brenneman {L}  02:09, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Does seem a little pointless, doesn't it? —Bunchofgrapes  (talk) 02:32, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Take the allegedly out and it makes perfect sense. I'm assuming they'll do so if it passes as it will then have been proven. JohnnyBGood  t c VIVA! 18:43, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Uh... no. The thing they're voting on includes the word "allegedly". --SPUI (T - C) 23:34, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

text: While I disagreed with the scope of that proposal, the purpose of that finding was to establish the dispute. That is what SPUI's opponents allege and it is why we have this arbitration. Other findings may or may not determine that arbcom agrees with them, but it is still useful to have a statement of the dispute nonetheless. Dmcdevit·t 07:22, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Then wouldn't it make sense to put it to the workshop page until  "allegedly" removed?  Can it be that hard to get agreement on what is being argued about? - brenneman {L}  06:09, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Allegedly a fact 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Recent additions 

message: 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, 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, a characterization I subsequently retracted after reviewing the relevant policy.
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)
thread_title: Probation

message: 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)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Highways/Proposed decision#... is discouraged]] liek whut? 

message: Would this be covered by this section?  JohnnyBGood  t c VIVA! 00:39, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Section 3.3.7 Parties warned for incivility

message: "As long as the probation covers the non-consensus crap that happened with  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'm Rschen7754, and I approve of this message. :) --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  23:18, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Request from Rschen