Spin, Wikipedia, Spin!

The block was based solely on the username. In blocking, I did not assess the quality of the information. Tho it's undoubtedly a conflict of interest for them to edit the article, that does not mean their changes must necessarily be reverted.

-Crzrussian

They didn't cite their sources; their username indicated that they may have been the creator of the original information. Wikipedia's No original research policy states:

This policy does not prohibit editors with specialist knowledge from adding their knowledge to Wikipedia, but it does prohibit them from drawing on their personal knowledge without citing their sources.

Dammit, Seth, quit making my points before I get there.

If it's true that I-5 doesn't have the capacity to add trips, there should be a link to evidence supporting that. That's basic Wikipedia style when dealing with info that's not patently obvious.

I also think it's spin to change (later in the article) "money is the major concern" to "a major concern," given that they don't really add other major concerns.

That said, if that's really WSDOT editing the article, I'm glad they were up front about their identity. And all the factual info is great -- but I wish they'd linked to more evidence.

I think it's pretty clear that by adding "does not have capacity to add trips" whoever edited it is hijacking the entry to comment about the rebuild situation. "does not have capacity" isn't fact, it's opinion. That's like having "does not have the capacity to release an original album" on a Rolling Stones entry or "does not have the capacity to hit a curveball" on Adrian Beltre's.

besides adding factual information about the % of traffic it currently serves through downtown, where did the user go wrong (besides his/her name)? these aren't made-up facts.

i understand people's concerns about biased information, but you're only complaining because you don't like the thought processes that will naturally follow from what was added. willful ignorance of factual information because it doesn't support your preference of the surface option doesn't lend credibility to your arguments.

if the person's username had been "joe x" would this have been as big a deal? i may be ranting a bit, but i'm appalled that lines like "a primary N-S route" would be cause for a banning. i'll also point out your own biases - the added text would indicate support for maintaining capacity whether that's retrofit, rebuild, or tunnel.

I blocked the username indefinitely. Thanks for pointing it out.

-Crzrussian, wikipedia administrator

the motivations are pretty clear, but it's not as if whoever edited the piece is making up facts, either. the clarification that Hwy99 is a primary N-S artery might seem an unnecessary clarification for those of us who live here, but i also think it's routinely ignored by the short-sighted PWC & its supporters.