Talk:DUI laws in California

New article

I've started the article DUI California, because months ago I discovered that California didn't have its own DUI article, although many other States did. It will take me a week or so to complete this article. My time is limited, however, I intend on trying to make it as complete as one editor can. Others are welcome to contribute.→‎ Pocketthis (talk) 21:34, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

The article is very basic, however, it does distinguish penalties in California if arrested for DUI from other States. My target audience for the article was intended to be those who are only interested in a DUI as it relates to them in the State of California, in a simplified format. It was expanded on today to show 3rd time offenders minimum penalties. - Pocketthis (talk) 16:36, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Nobody Owns Wikipedia Articles

Pocketthis (talk · contribs) , in relation to the inappropriate reversion explained,

Don't mess with my article, unless you have a clue what you are doing. I'm averaging the entire cost of getting a DUI. Your redirect doesn't answer that at all

please remember that Wikipedia is a collective project, and nobody owns an article -- including this one. Also, when you say "I'm averaging the entire cost", it means that you are doing what amounts to original research, which is not the purpose of Wikipedia. Also, your "total cost" is reflective of the legal penalty -- attorney fees are not part of the penalty for a DUI charge. Remember, we're editing in good faith, and we all must keep in mind that other editors may have considerably more subject matter expertise than we do. Also, I did not implement any form of redirect.

If you can justify your reversion in accord with Wikipedia's policies, please provide your explanation. Otherwise, the edits should be restored. Arllaw (talk) 18:20, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

• I wrote this article with the help of a friend in DMV, and my personal attorney. Those costs are almost to the penny. Get a life, and get out of my article.Pocketthis (talk) 18:29, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

I don't know about the merits of your edit at this time, but please read WP:OWN regarding article ownership(or the lack thereof). 331dot (talk) 18:33, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

You are now reiterating that you are relying upon your personal, anecdotal experience, as opposed to using even a proper sources. Also, even if we assume that your number approximates what you paid to your lawyer at one point in time, the costs are not fixed in time nor are fees consistent from region to region within the state. Arllaw (talk) 18:40, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

• I don't mind, (in fact I would like) constructive edits in my article. Others have added things that were relevant and helpful. Your edit is not constructive, and I'll revert it every time I see it. If you have something else relevant you'd like to add to that section or sentence, I have no objection at all. But removing the total cost of getting in your car loaded and getting a DUI in California, "Is NOT Constructive". it's "Negligent". I will research the cost and add a citation shortly to back up the numbers.→ Pocketthis (talk) 18:42, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

You have failed to justify your action other than with declarations of ownership of the article, and your own experience with your personal lawyer. Neither justify your actions. If you want to rephrase your claims and properly support them, please be my guest. If not, then the edits should be restored. Arllaw (talk) 18:44, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

I must agree that your personal research and calculations are not sufficient for Wikipedia article content. That is called original research. If such costs are documented in a reliable source, such as an official publication from California DMV, the California Attorney General's office, police, or any other reliable source, that's fine. But your own calculations are not. 331dot (talk) 18:46, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

• OK, I just added a certification to back it up.Pocketthis (talk) 18:54, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Renaming Article

I agree with 93 (talk · contribs) that this article would be more appropriately titled "DUI Laws in California". Arllaw (talk) 18:23, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

• I chose DUI California, because other states have that name for their DUI article. That's the name. Get used to it.→ Pocketthis (talk) 18:32, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Please provide an example of such an article title; I've typed in a few using other states and can't find one. Most DUI laws seem covered in "Alcohol laws of X state" pages, such as Alcohol laws of New Jersey. Currently, California does not have a separate article for its alcohol laws, perhaps this could be renamed to "Alcohol laws of California". 331dot (talk) 18:37, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Renaming this article to "Alcohol laws of California" would be appropriate if its scope were expanded to include such issues as dram shop laws, liquor licensing and regulation, and the like. Without such an expansion, the title should continue to reflect its focus. Arllaw (talk) 18:42, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Fair enough, it would be an improvement at least. 331dot (talk) 18:49, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

• The name of the article stays AS IS. I'll delete it before I'll change the name. End of discussion.→Pocketthis (talk) 18:56, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

You really need to read up on the Wikipedia:Five pillars of editing here (seriously, follow that link and go read it now), especially the third one. If you keep bandying around phrases like "the article stays AS IS" and "I'll delete it before I'll", you tenure here is probably not going to be a happy one. Heiro 01:22, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

• It really isn't anything about tenure my friend at all. In fact, I've been here longer than most. As far as being happy, I'm rarely happy here reverting vandals everyday due to the "anyone can edit" policy here. What it comes down to is simple: I didn't know that when someone creates an article, especially one that is quite new, that anyone can come along and post "name change citations" on it. And yes, quite frankly, that pissed me off. I did my homework on that article and wrote it in good faith. It is being extremely well received by the public, and I get a feeling of joy, and personal satisfaction knowing that thousands of folks that had no clue what to do the morning after they were let out of a holding cell for a DUI the evening prior, can now find all their answers in one place. Right here in the article I took the time and patience to write. So Yes, I have to get used to the idea, that once I write an article, and it's been reviewed, I have no more influence in that article than some newbie with 10 edits to his name. That's all it was about today. Nothing more, and nothing less. I certainly don't need to read the 5 pillars for having one bad day here. Happy editing→ Pocketthis (talk) 01:39, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

I meant tenure as being "your time here", and speaking of your time here, if you don't pop over to ANI soon, do some very sincere apologizing and seriously change how you edit and interact with others on this communal endeavor, your time unhappily editing here is about to be over.Heiro 05:55, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

You obviously don't understand that once you publish something to Wikipedia, it is editable and debatable by anyone on this planet, and the discussion is not over just because you say it is. Again, you do not own this article just because you wrote it. See WP:OWN. Article titles must conform to Wikipedia guidelines. Again, if you know of another, similar title, please link to it. This combative attitude is not necessary and hurts the process here. 331dot (talk) 19:02, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

You also can't blank the article(only admins can delete an article) just because you wrote most or all of it. Once you post to Wikipedia, it is no longer yours. 331dot (talk) 19:09, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

• Going through the alphabet in the search bar, I believe this page is the only such page; there is no "DUI Alabama", "DUI New York", etc. 331dot (talk) 19:16, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
• @Pocketthis: Just a general comment about Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. I think the sentence It is being extremely well received by the public, and I get a feeling of joy, and personal satisfaction knowing that thousands of folks that had no clue what to do the morning after they were let out of a holding cell for a DUI the evening prior, can now find all their answers in one place. from your above post indicates a serious misunderstanding about the role of Wikipedia. Wikipedia articles are not intended to be places where readers can go and seek out medical or legal advice as explained in Wikipedia: Wikipedia is not a manual, guidebook, textbook, or scientific journal and Wikipedia:Legal disclaimer. In fact, trying to advise or encourage readers to do such a thing is not a very wise thing to do simply because what is added as being 100% true one moment can be removed as original research the next. For sure, a well-written, well-cited Wikipedia article may provide some general information about a subject and the cited sources cited may lead the reader to reputable reliable sources, etc. where they can find more specific detailed information, but an article should be seen at best as only being only a stepping-stone and not as a final definitive source of information. In fact, Wikipedia policy does not even consider Wikipedia articles to be a reliable source for pretty much any purpose per Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a reliable source. While I think it's nice of you to want to help others dealing with DUI issues in California, a Wikipedia article is not really suited to serve such a role per Wikipedia:Advocacy and Wikipedia: Righting Great Wrongs, and you'll more likely have a better success at accomplishing such a thing on your own blog or website where you'll have total editorial control from start to finish. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:13, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 21 December 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 19:40, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

---

DUI California → DUI laws in California – Better conformity with other similar pages, as discussed above and in an edit summary in the page's history. 331dot (talk) 19:08, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose :Totally disagree. No need to change the article name from how I created it. It is being found quickly in the search results, and this name change is "all ego baloney". There is nothing wrong with the current title. That is the name that inspired me to write the article. Also, DUI "Laws" is not what the article is about. We all know what the "Law" is: "You can't drive after drinking". THIS article is to explain the entire ordeal of making that mistake, and the penalties and costs that one might absorb from being convicted of a DUI in California. If the name "must" be changed, I would agree with: "DUI in California", however, I really don't think it is necessary→ Pocketthis (talk) 19:42, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
• Support: Per WP:TITLE. This shouldn't be controversial. "DUI California" is unnatural and inconsistent with other articles on similar topics. At best, Pocketthis might have an argument for DUI (California), but I would oppose such a disambiguator as inconsistent with other similar article titles and contrary to how parenthetical disambiguators are used on Wikipedia. That the legal consequences of drunk driving in California are the putative subject of this article is irrelevant, and does not overcome the standard of using a natural phrase as an article title. Moreover, the actual subject of this article is not for you to personally determine, Pocketthis. See WP:OWN. This current article title would be deleted if it were a newly created redirect. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 20:53, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

I agree that this should not be controversial, but comments from the principal editor(and the fact that they reverted a move once already) led me to believe a wider discussion was necessary. 331dot (talk) 21:39, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

• As I said above: I will agree to "DUI in California". However, DUI Laws in California is just not what this article is about. Also, I don't understand this sentence: This current article title would be deleted if it were a newly created redirect. The editor that wants to change my title to include the word "Laws", just so happens to be the same editor in 2013 that created an article called: "Alcohol Laws in Maine". If you go to the page view 90 day analysis of that article, you will see an almost 2/3 decline in viewership. However, DUI California, with the same 90 day page view analysis, has almost a 2/3 "increase" in viewership. Perhaps 331dot (talk) is trying to sabotage DUI California to reflect a decline instead of an increase. The truest old saying on this planet, and one that I have lived my life by since childhood is: If it ain't broke, don't fix it→ Pocketthis (talk) 21:21, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

The assertion that I am trying to sabotage anything is simply inaccurate. What I am trying to do is have consistent article titles in this subject area. "DUI California" is a search term, not an article title. Fine for Google, not so much for Wikipedia. You have claimed there are other similar titles; I couldn't find one and am still awaiting a link from you to prove your claim. 331dot (talk) 21:39, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Pocketthis you are not allowed to vote twice. I have refactored your comment so it does not appear like you are trying to. --Tarage (talk) 02:37, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

• The articles I had in mind were written with the word "in". My error. e.g.: "DUI in New Jersey" which was a stub ultimately joined into a New Jersey Alcohol laws article, covering licensing and the sale of alcoholic beverages, which my article doesn't even touch upon. I have no problem at all with DUI "in" California. In fact, if I were to be completely honest, I would have to admit that I have been tempted to add the word "in" to the title in the past. However, I certainly don't think the word "Laws" belongs in an article devoted to penalties and costs incurred from a DUI arrest. There is just no common sense in it. To prove my case I offer this example: Why is Wikipedia's main DUI article simply named "DUI", and not "DUI Laws"? Pocketthis (talk) 22:43, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

While I'm unconvinced "laws" should not be in the title, an alternative could be "Driving under the influence in California". Most costs and penalties are set in law, hence the use of "laws". 331dot (talk) 22:55, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

How about DUI Penalties in California. I can live with that, and it is factual as well. Pocketthis (talk) 22:59, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

I don't know, but the words should be used and not just "DUI". 331dot (talk) 23:03, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

That is absolutely OUT OF THE QUESTION!!! No one uses the long version, not even Wikipedia!!Pocketthis (talk) 23:06, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

The main Wikipedia article is called DUI. I really don't think you have a clue what's going on here, and you should remove yourself from this discussion. I'm serious. That was the worst idea I've ever heard an editor here com up with, and it shows your lack of common sense!Pocketthis (talk) 23:10, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

DUI is a redirect to Driving under the influence. Please don't make personal attacks- and please indent your posts to keep order in this discussion. Thank you. "DUI" is not necessarily understood by all English speakers/readers who might see the article. 331dot (talk) 23:33, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

I think "Driving under the influence in California" or perhaps "Drunk driving in California" are entirely reasonable alternatives. Cf. Drunk driving in the United States and Drunk driving in New Jersey, though I'll note it's not mandatory we follow those articles' example; I frankly think all the articles in this suite ought to use the phrase "DUI law of X". Under no circumstances is "DUI California" an acceptable article title under Wikipedia policy, and wherever this article is moved it should be without a redirect. Frankly, this discussion is getting stranger by the minute, and I'm frankly starting to wonder if there's a SEO or domain name sales reason for the insistence behind this article title staying here... because the explanation we've gotten makes no sense whatsoever, and when article ownership comes up there's usually at least some semi-reasonable explanation as to why one party believes the version he or she introduced is better. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 00:13, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

I already stated that I have no problem with changing the name. I just don't care for the word "Laws" in the new title. So, I have no idea what you're talking about with "domain sales". I don't even know what that means. Here is my logic for the last time: Since the main article on this site is called simply: DUI, then spelling out the abbreviation on 'this' article is ludicrous. Everyone searching for the title is going to punch in DUI, not the long version. However, at this point I give up. and you folks can change the name to anything you like. Have fun, and happy editing!Pocketthis (talk) 00:37, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

• Support per WP:UE. —  AjaxSmack  21:45, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

• Support. Current title is completely nonsensical, akin to something like “Religion China” or “Abortion France.” 9³ 22:38, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
• Support per Mendaliv. MitchG74 23:11, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
• Support As others have said, current title makes no sense. Nil Einne (talk) 02:10, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
• Support move, but not necessarily to this title - DUI isn't universal, and drunk driving leaves out other drugs. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:32, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
• Support move per User:93, as current title is not acceptable. Also a trout (at least) to Pocketthis for serious WP:OWN problems and WP:IDHT behavior. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:31, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
• Support per colleagues above. Needs something more than a trout though. -Roxy, Zalophus californianus. barcus 04:24, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
• Support per User:Mendaliv and 9³ Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:44, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
• Support per Mendaliv. Egsan Bacon (talk) 05:14, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
• Support per Mendaliv. Pocketthis needs to abandon their combative ownership attitude now, and begin genuine collaboration. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:21, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

• Pocketthis seems to have left Wikipedia, according to their user talk page, which would remove the only opposition to this move. 331dot (talk) 16:31, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Well, I say we go ahead and move it. In fact, I think I'll be bold and do it myself. MitchG74 16:35, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

• Support but please see below @MitchG74: In ictu oculi (talk) 18:15, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Should more non-American users be able to easily identify the article?

Although the abbreviation DUI does occasionally appear in non-US news sources regarding actors etc hauled over for drink driving in the US, it isn't something that means much in non-US English. Is there a problem to moving to spell out DUI to agree with article Driving under the influence so that non-American readers can identify what the article is about? In ictu oculi (talk) 12:24, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

i.e. Driving under the influence laws in California per WP:CRITERIA In ictu oculi (talk) 12:25, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

I could support that, though my nitpicky preference as an attorney is for Driving under the influence law in California (i.e., singular "law"). "Laws" plural typically means we're talking about a set of statutes, rather than a body of law and its enforcement, if that makes sense. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 12:43, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable. In ictu oculi (talk) 17:58, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

• @In ictu oculi: Do you wish to pursue this title change? If so, I have no prejudice to a new move request; it's just that it was suggested late in the discussion, so a new discussion would provide clearer and wider consensus for this opinion. Steel1943 (talk) 19:42, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

December 2017

Acting as an uninvolved administrator, I have protected this article for three days due to edit warring by established editors. Please work to achieve consensus here. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:14, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

@Cullen328: Can I ask you to consider reducing the protection level to semi-protected? The “established user” is Pocketthis (talk · contribs), who has been banned for two weeks for disruptive editing of this article. The IP is suspected to be a sockpuppet of Poketthis See WP:ANI#IP hopping, probably block evasion by User:Pocketthis. Billhpike (talk) 22:29, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Upon taking a closer look, I agree with your analysis, Billhpike. I have changed it to semiprotection. If disruption by block evading IPs continues, I will extend the protection. Thank you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:40, 25 December 2017 (UTC)