Wikipedia:State route naming conventions poll/Adjudication

Introduction

This is a work page for the "admin judges" to work through issues that need adjudication relating to issues that arise trying to follow the process and implement the findings of Wikipedia:State route naming conventions poll Anyone is welcome to read it (of COURSE!) but only the 6 "admin judges" should edit it. Anyone else editing it may be subject to arbitrary, unfair and capricious blocking by Gonzo.

This is NOT for the formal Part1, part2, etc votes. Just intermediate issues that arise to keep things moving.

Process

Please feel free to expand/correct the problem statement. However changing the problem statement too much should invalidate comments made before (if we did this with full formal RfC style process with no changes in problem statemetns we'd be here forever!
If you change it "substantively" please ~~strike~~ the votes/comments made before hand if it is at all likely they do not apply. Timestamp your change
If your vote/comment is struck, please revise it to fit the new problem statement and unstrike it.
An issue is decided by majority (of 6, that is 4) vote when at least 4 admins have unstruck comments that are dated after the problem statement

Issues

The issues in chronological order

Issue 1: to what does Principle 1 apply?

Statement of issue

Does P1 apply to all states (save MI and KS)? Or only those states where a controversy exists about naming standards? If the former, when do states have to convert? "eventually" or "right away" ? If the latter, what is "controversy"? 18:30, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Judgement

I think on the face of it, the INTENT is that P1 applies to all states and that all states would convert "right away". However I think it will be less contentious to apply the following remedy. P1 applies only to those states that are in controversy, for now, as long as those states 1) apply redirects to have searchable/linkable names in compliance with P1 and 2) agree that "eventually" they will convert (or seek conversion assistance) to P1. If they seek conversion assistance and none is forthcoming from P1 advocates, they do not have to convert until such assistance is given.++Lar: t/c 18:30, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
addendum: "Controversy" exists if there is any argument at all whether there is controversy or not... unless we say it doesn't for expediency's sake. (hence NJ is in controversy because they're arguing about whether they are or not... but I advocate pretending they are not to reduce tension) ++Lar: t/c 18:43, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I felt the intent was that P1 applied to all states, though certainly we didn't arrive at this poll through a process that involved all states...only specific states. We could be overstepping our mandate to say that it applies to every state and force conversion, though I certainly can understand the benefits of having a universal style for road articles. So through that process I say it only applies to states that are in controversy (who will have the style applied), and controversy I would say is any of the states whose naming processes brought them to arbcom / ANI / etc. (sadly we'll have to do some digging). All states if they do not adopt the naming will at least have redirects with the P1 naming style. Syrthiss 18:56, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I also feel that the intent of P1 was that it applied to all states. However, I must agree with Lar and Syrthiss in this. But I would encourage those states that are currently not at P1 to work as quickly as possible to adopt it. At the same time I would caution those who think that P1 should be forced at once, to refrain from making hasty page moves. I also wonder if there are any states that fit the following two requirements:

1. The state is "not" in controversy at this time.

2. The state has some articles at "State name Road X" and some articles at "Road X (State name)".

If so, then I feel that any states that meet the above two points should convert immediately to P1. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 23:10, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bleh. If there isn't an existing 'controversy' (which I will arbitrarily define as roughly 20%+ of active participants in the topic disputing a standard) then the last thing we should do is to introduce one. The poll did (to me) have the intent of setting a nationwide standard, but that clearly was not realized/anticipated by a significant number of users. Whatever we come up with will not be a 'universal standard' anyway because of the state 'road type' variations and other stylistic exceptions... and whatever degree of standardization does exist can be supported by redirects at almost full efficacy (save 'what Joe Newbie will link to' issues). So, P1 applies to all states except where a different standard is already uncontroversially accepted... and there it should at the least be used for redirects and preferably converted to for consistency. Though I'd set no timetables or absolute requirements for that. We have other inconsistencies and so long as inconsistency does not lead to strife I'd prefer not to open Pandora's box again. --CBD 02:35, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say that it was meant to apply to all states, but since we really don't want to introduce *MORE* conflict into the situation, I'd also go with only applying it to those states whose rules are questioned, as suggested by others above. —Nightst a llion (?) 06:12, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Resolution

The following is established:

P1 has passed by majority vote and is the basis for further work, and standards other proposals are not.
P1 when put forth by its proponents, was most probably intended to apply to all states, and immediately. However this was not clearly stated
This is not accepted widely, including by some of those that voted in favour.
Therefore
- all states are invited to switch to P1 if they are not already at it.
- all states are required to set up redirects that implement P1 if they are not already at it. If they refuse to do so they are not in compliance but rather in controversy, and will be forced to implement P1.
- states that are in controversy about what standard to apply are required to switch to P1 "eventually".
- states that have inconsistently named articles, whether in controversy or not are also required to switch.
- States can request conversion assistance and not receiving it postpones implementation until it is received

So ordered (four sigs makes it so):

++Lar: t/c 04:46, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Issue 1a: Is NJ currently in "controversy"?

Statement of issue

Is NJ currently in controversy about their naming standards as some NJ project participants allege? Or did SPUI's moves, which were not reverted at the time and not subsequently changed either, become "non controversial" for NJ? 18:30, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Judgement

No, NJ is not in controversy, for the purposes of deciding about P1 applicability. Although a minority alleges it is, it will be more harmonious to allow/force it to convert "eventually" (this judgement depends on Issue 1 coming out the way I adjudge it) ++Lar: t/c 18:30, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum: In actual fact I think NJ IS in controversy but I am for the purposes of adjudication, "pretending" it is not. Hence my No vote. I am not sure whether to interpret Syrthiss's vote as a no or yes. (I note that I think forcing NJ to apply P1 now will cause explosions in NJ and happiness elsewhere) ++Lar: t/c 19:10, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes NJ is in controversy, because some users put forth that it is. However, I'm willing to be soft on NJ's adoption of the P1 style barring any huge blowups / edit wars. I'd not be adverse to applying P1 style in that case in order to avoid further disruption. Syrthiss 19:00, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- This should be taken as NJ = No. Syrthiss 19:12, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Again I agree with Lar & Syrthiss. For the purpose of P1 NJ is not in controversy. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 23:10, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is always some degree of disagreement. However, even the few NJ participants who disagree have been 'living with' the current situation without wacky histrionics (for which they are to be profusely congratulated given the well documented crazy-making effects of Wikipedia 'road work'). Ergo, what exists now seems not to have caused massive disruption to date, is not being denounced by numerous participants as a horrific evil which must be expunged, and thus gets my vote. NJ not 'in controversy'. --CBD 02:41, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'd agree with all of that, yes. Unless opposition increases substantially in the next weeks, I'd say it isn't in controversy currently. —Nightst a llion (?) 06:12, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Resolution

The following is established:

NJ was subject to some moves prior to its project being set up
All road names in NJ are uniform
NJ project members let the moves go but are not necessarily all in agreement about them
There is controversy about whether the state is "in controversy" for the purposes of the above P1 implementations
Therefore:
- We arbitrarily, and for the sake of harmony, adjudge NJ not in controversy and thus not subject to being forced to switch to P1 named articles. We invite it to do so. We require it to set up redirects to implement P1 namings.

So ordered (four sigs makes it so):