Revision as of 21:58, 14 June 2006

This is a page for working on Arbitration decisions. It provides for suggestions by Arbitrators and other users and for comment by arbitrators, the parties and others. After the analysis of /Evidence here and development of proposed principles, findings of fact, and remedies. Anyone who edits should sign all suggestions and comments. Arbitrators will place proposed items they have confidence in on /Proposed decision.

Motions and requests by the parties

Other involved parties

1) The following users are named as additional involved parties:

• 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 <freak|talk>

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Agreed. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 22:51, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Moved from Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for arbitration/Highways. — Jun. 3, '06 <freak|talk>

For the record I'd rather not be involved in this arbcom thanks. I excused myself from this debate and conceded to SPUI over two months ago on his talk page and via email. I'm finally enjoying Misplaced Pages again writing articles and such and would like to keep it that way if it's all the same to everyone. I no longer care what names the highways end up at. Gateman1997 05:25, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

And for the record I may have posted some comments below, but I'm still not considering myself involved. I am just concerned at how one sided this debate seems to have been to this point. Gateman1997 05:28, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Agree for User:Nohat as he's been in the thick of it from day one, especially on Route 17. Disagree for the other three users as all three appear to have lost interest before it became a full on war particularly User:Locke Cole who appears to have left Misplaced Pages completely. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 00:19, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Scope of this case

1) The Arbitration Committee shall clarify the scope of this arbitration case, to wit, whether the committee shall make rulings in this case with regards (a) to conduct of Misplaced Pages editors, (b) naming conventions of Misplaced Pages articles relating to numbered highways in the United States, (c) content of such articles, or (d) some combination of a, b, and c.

Comment by Arbitrators:

I have put up the proposed decision. I come down heavy on SPUI since he was so hard headed. Make up a decent naming convention and ask SPUI to respect it. Content will depend on who edits the article. I could write quite a nice article about Colorado State Highway 17, after all I have spend man-months on that road. Fred Bauder 18:08, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

I sense that all involved parties would like to know, early on, which direction this is going. — Jun. 5, '06 <freak|talk>

I second this notion. I also would like to know the scope of this case. I don't believe any of the parties involved are looking for sanctions against other users (feel free to correct me if I'm wrong) but rather want to know what the final end all name for these articles should be. Establishing that in my mind would eliminate any need to sanction users. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 18:02, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

I'd suggest that trying to limit the "scope of investigation" is almost always a bad idea. If someone thinks an area is important and busily piles up a bunch of evidence to support it, good for them. - brenneman 01:58, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed temporary injunctions

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed final decision

Proposed principles

The effect of an article title

1) An article title (minus parenthetical disambiguation) is usually what is bolded at the beginning of an article and what is linked to from other articles. Using the wrong title can result in stilted and redundant sentences like (hypothetical example) "Washington State Route 78 runs from Washington State Route 56 north past Washington State Route 327 to end at Washington State Route 45."

Comment by Arbitrators:

Nothing wrong with '''Washington State Route 78''' runs from ] north past ] to end at ]. Fred Bauder 01:23, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

There is definitely something wrong with that. The use of Washington is only for disambiguation purposes; adding it when the context already makes it clear is bad writing. And we should always make the context crystal-clear in the first sentence of the article: State Route 78 is a state highway in the U.S. state of Washington. We would never say "State Route 78 (Washington) runs from State Route 56 (Washington)...". As the name of the route is State Route X, not Washington State Route X, we should not be using the "Washington" except where necessary to establish context. --SPUI (T - C) 06:33, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I just had a long-time "trusted" user look over my argument here and he said that "it seems to hold water". I'd appreciate knowing what exactly you disagree with. --SPUI (T - C) 15:52, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Setting aside any disambiguation conventions, we should avoid writing "Washington State Route X" in text when that is not the common or official name and the context is established ("is a state highway in the U.S. state of Washington"). I believe this to be the core problem - improper naming encourages sloppy text. --SPUI (T - C) 18:37, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

This makes sense, if the proper name of the subject is "A", but "A" is non-unique, the title should be ], and the article ought to start with something similar to "'''A''' is a in ], located near ] and ]...". The identity of B, in this case a geographical entity, is already established for the context of this hypothetical article. — Jun. 2, '06 <freak|talk>

Per clarification by Jdforrester here, content matters such as this one are not in scope for this arbitration case, and the ArbCom is likely to ignore them. —phh (/_c) 17:45, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

If content isn't why we're here, then WHY are we here? JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 00:16, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I am with Fred Bauer on this one. In my eyes, the hypothetical example should probably read:

Washington State Route 78 is a state highway from Renton to Tacoma, Washington, running from State Route 56 north past State Route 327 to end at State Route 45.

-- Northenglish 21:37, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

See - you did it too. You bolded the Washington, even though you realize that the name of the route is State Route 78. As for the other links, there's a reason we have the pipe trick. Articles should be at the name that is correct, easily recognized, and aids linking. If one has to type out Washington State Route X|State Route X every time one wants to link to an article, that does the opposite. People will - and do - simply link to Washington State Route X with no pipe, and we get sloppy writing. --SPUI (T - C) 22:27, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I did it too because I realize that State Route 78 is a name for the route, and another name for the route is Washington State Route 78. This more complete name is more appropriate in this case because we are disambiguating between two exceedingly similar items--two state roads--rather than a planet and a chemical element (as is the case for Mercury), where context is not necessary in the same way. -- Northenglish 23:26, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Look, how is this even something to argue about? Many, many articles have titles that aren't identical to what gets bolded in the first paragraph. Richard III of England begins "Richard III (2 October 1452 – 22 August 1485) was King of England from 1483 until his death and the last king from the House of York." Is anyone having a conniption over that? No. There's no problem whatsoever with an article titled "Washington State Route 78" beginning with the sentence "State Route 78 is a highway in the state of Washington." Stop being pedantic. —phh (/_c) 01:25, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I suppose I can agree with that. However, there is a problem with SPUI claiming that the article title is so important for this reason, then leaving articles titled State Route 539 (Washington) starting with the sentence "Washington State Route 539 ... is a highway in the state of Washington, U.S.A." -- Northenglish 01:35, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

The effect of the difference between a page name and the bolded introductory phrase really doesn't matter in context. It will still be of the form "X is a..." followed by the definition of X. I'd drop this one. —Rob (talk) 20:23, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Process is important

1) Process is important. Editors are not entitled to ignore the need to obtain consensus for a large-scale, potentially controversial change simply because they believe they are "right" and anyone who disagrees is therefore "wrong."

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I would hope that this is self-evident. —phh (/_c) 06:56, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

"Self-evident" is an interesting choice of words. Are you implying that if arbcom says "there shall be no further life, liberty, and persuit of happiness without due process", you'd still stick around? — Jun. 2, '06 <freak|talk>

I'll count on you to keep me up to date on any such mind-blowingly unlikely happenings. —phh (/_c) 17:55, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Editing guidelines

1) Be bold in updating pages, ignore all rules, and, above all, use common sense.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

This could benefit from expansion, please be bold and do so. — Jun. 2, '06 <freak|talk>

The Be bold page explicitly cautions against obstinately bulling ahead with large-scale changes in the face of obvious controversy. —phh (/_c) 17:53, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Misplaced Pages works by building consensus

1) All editors should seek change through polite discussion and negotiation, and assume good faith until given a reason to do otherwise. In the absence of a consensus that an existing convention (formal or informal) should be changed, all editors should respect the status quo until such a consensus is evident.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Boo-yah. —phh (/_c) 01:01, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I hope this isn't your approach to spelling errors as well. — Jun. 8, '06 <freak|talk>

This is not in any way, shape, or form a case where one proposal is correct and one is incorrect. Both "State Route X" (with parenthetical disambiguation if necessary) and "Statename State Route X" (which can be considered a form of disambiguation) can be considered equally correct. The question is how do we apply existing naming and disambiguation conventions, such as--but certainly not limited to--common names and more complete names. But to answer your question, correcting spelling errors tends to have consensus. -- Northenglish 02:36, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

"Both "State Route X" (with parenthetical disambiguation if necessary) and "Statename State Route X" (which can be considered a form of disambiguation) can be considered equally correct." This is totally wrong, and your failure to realize that is the problem here. --SPUI (T - C) 14:10, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Disambiguation and Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (common names) beg to differ with you. —phh (/_c) 16:45, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I beg to differ. The "problem" here is your failure to realize two things. (1) The more complete names convention at WP:D does exist. (2) Misplaced Pages is a global encyclopedia, so we need to use the common name globally, not the name that's common within (for ex.) Washington state. -- Northenglish 18:25, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Freakofnurture admits that "California State Route X" is a valid, more complete name (note the end of his post) -- Northenglish 20:47, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Holy crap, you're avoiding the issue. --SPUI (T - C) 22:25, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I didn't say it was valid, or more complete, I said that putting the state name before the route name is useful as a redirect, and it can be used for clarification purposes in a paragraph of text in an article where the context of which state the highway is in has not already been established. Such a case is not the norm, however. The majority of references to state highway articles are from articles about other topics relating to the same state, rendering the practice of displaying the state name in the visible link text redundant, awkward, and wrong. — Jun. 9, '06 <freak|talk>

I admit that you did not use the words "valid" or "more complete". However, you do admit that "explicitly specifying 'California State Route X' would be helpful" in certain articles. Surely you are not proposing we include invalid information in those certain articles?

Such a case is very much the norm in Misplaced Pages, as the article title and the first mention of the road in the article text occur before any context has already been established. The name "California State Route X" is by definition more complete, and establishes the context for the reader.

As for SPUI, I am most certainly not avoiding the issue. You stated that the two naming conventions are not equally correct, I am showing how they are. -- Northenglish 20:52, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

"Respecting the status quo" flies directly in the face of "be bold". This principle is incorrect. --SPUI (T - C) 22:37, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

The Be bold page explicitly cautions against obstinately bulling ahead with large-scale changes in the face of obvious controversy. —phh (/_c) 01:15, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Voting is not necessarily evil

1) Voting can be used to reach a consensus. Misplaced Pages:Voting is evil is not Misplaced Pages policy, it's not even a guideline; it's a simple essay, and holds the same bearing as Misplaced Pages:Voting is not evil.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

SPUI is too stubborn for us to reach a unanimous consensus. However, there have been numerous polls on the issue, and he is usually outvoted. SPUI rejects the results of the poll citing WP:VIE. -- Northenglish 00:03, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

On the one vote with large turnout - Talk:State Route 2 (California) - there was no consensus. The other votes have been on backwater WikiProjects. --SPUI (T - C) 14:53, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm counting 8 Support vs. 8 Oppose on Talk:State Route 2 (California), which means you're right, there's no consensus in either direction. The other votes on so-called "backwater WikiProjects" indicate consensus in favor of "Statename State Route X". -- Northenglish (talk) -- 05:53, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Until someone can prove to me that 100% of an affected population would agree with the wills of a few, I'll hold that "voting is evil" and should be the last resort attempt. —Rob (talk) 20:27, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Parenthetical disambiguation cannot be used without an accompanying disambiguation page

1) Parenthetical disambiguation in the form "A (B)" must not be used without creating a disambiguation page or redirect titled "A". This is because a user searching for a page titled "A (B)" is likely to type "A" into the search box (if WP:D guidelines are being applied correctly), and if no disambiguation/redirect page exists, the user will find a message stating "No page with this title exists", and assume that Misplaced Pages has no information on that topic.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

To use a specific example, at the time I made this post, the page State Route 539 did not exist, even though State Route 539 (Washington) did. This means that a user typing "State Route 539" into the search box would get a message stating that no page with title existed.

This problem is compounded by an apparent bug in the search engine that does not allow numbers as search terms. This means that the search results do not provide the backup that would normally solve the problem of a missing page. (Even now that the missing State Route 539 disambiguation page exists, the top search result for "State Route 539" is California State Route 112, followed by a number of seemingly randomly selected state routes from across the country.) -- Northenglish (talk) -- 21:54, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

1. This is a reason to fix the software, not use improper titles.
2. It in fact makes no difference whether the article is at State Route 539 (Washington) or Washington State Route 539. If someone types in "State Route 539", the search results will be useless either way.

--SPUI (T - C) 00:40, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Incidentally, a discussion regarding how best to handle these is currently awaiting some sort of response to preempt possible cries of unilateralism which might arise next week or so. Interestingly, PHenry has stated that these pages are likely to be listed at AfD. So on one hand, our progress is too slow, but on the other hand, it might ultimately prove to be wasted effort. — Jun. 14, '06 <freak|talk>

I've made my comment on that page; I agree with SPUI's idea, as we've made it abundantly clear that the term "Route X" is not used nationwide. I also disagree with PHenry's statement regarding AfD, as these pages (whether they're straight disambiguation pages or lists) serve a very important purpose, whether or not we ultimately decide to use parenthetical disambiguation. -- Northenglish (talk) -- 21:58, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

When blocking may not be used

1) 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. Generally, caution should be exercised before blocking users who may be acting in good faith.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Misplaced Pages:Blocking_policy#When blocking may not be used. — Jun. 14, '06 <freak|talk>

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Highway nomenclature in the state of Washington

1) The Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) has confirmed that the proper name for roads maintained by that agency is in fact "State Route XX", not "Washington State Route XX"".

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

As confirmed by WSDOT's Kimberly Colburn mailto:hqcustomerservice@wsdot.wa.gov. — Jun. 2, '06 <freak|talk>

Honestly, a single email should not be taken as proof alone, as people are fallible. But there is a preponderance of evidence that WSDOT does in fact use State Route X. --SPUI (T - C) 02:41, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Per clarification by Jdforrester here, content matters such as this one are not in scope for this arbitration case, and the ArbCom is likely to ignore them. —phh (/_c) 17:44, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

You may ultimately be correct on this, but that opinion is not unanimously held by the arbitrators agreeing to accept this case. Fred Bauder's comment: "Accept for the purpose of binding arbitration regarding the style issue". I would like to keep this information easily accessible in preparation for the event that the committee does decide to go that route. If they explicitly state that "We, the arbitration committee, have decided not to deal with content issues in this case", closing the door on the relevance of this information, I will remove this item myself. I think it would be beneficial to all parties if that question is resolved early on. — Jun. 5, '06 <freak|talk>

Comment by others:

There is no consensus in this issue

1) Misplaced Pages:Consensus links to Consensus, which defines consensus as "a general agreement among the members of a given group or community, each of which exercises some discretion in decision making and follow-up action". As there is no agreement among all involved editors, there is no consensus.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

There was consensus before SPUI dissented and made his page moves. There has never been consensus for SPUI's article titles. -- Northenglish 21:30, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject California State Highways/Archive#Article Titles:

If you noticed, SPUI seems to be on a crusade to rename "California state highways" to "California State Routes". A few days ago, he renamed all of the articles that way. And he was the one who posted Category:California state highways on CFD to be renamed like that. So I might suggest that we should also rename this Wikiproject to Misplaced Pages:WikiProject California State Routes. Zzyzx11 | Talk 05:38, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Maybe in another year everyone will vigorously defend State Route X (California). --SPUI (T - C) 11:51, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

And maybe in another year everyone will vigorously defend California State Highway X. What's your point? -- Northenglish (talk) -- 20:01, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Efforts to reach consensus have become unworkably complex

1) Over the past four months, efforts have been made to formally address the Misplaced Pages highway naming convention at Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (numbered highways), Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Highways/U.S. state highway naming conventions, Talk:California State Highway 2, Misplaced Pages:WikiProject U.S. Roads, Misplaced Pages:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-03-12 U.S. Roads, Misplaced Pages:State route naming conventions poll, and less formally at countless other pages. It is not reasonable to expect a typical editor to know which of these pages, if any, is the appropriate place for discussing and agreeing upon highway naming conventions.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Boo-yah. —phh (/_c) 17:53, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

I'll voice my support of this. I think this is why I stopped caring where the articles end up back in March. There was no actual place to discuss the issue conclusively. Gateman1997 05:24, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

JohnnyBGood and PHenry persist in misrepresenting SPUI's moves as vandalism

JohnnyBGood and PHenry have maintained before and during the Arbitration case that his reversions of SPUI's moves are "reverting vandalism". Good-faith efforts to improve the encyclopedia, no matter how much one disagrees with them, are never vandalism. The fact that one does not agree with an edit, even if one believes it to be vandalism, does not excuse one to call it vandalism.

Comment by Arbitrators:

SPUI is often correct in his decisions. He feel being correct justifies aggressiveness. My position is that it does not. He should defer, whether he is correct or not, to other opinions. As long as he runs wild, it will not end. Fred Bauder 12:37, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Highways/Evidence#JohnnyBGood persists in making personal attacks against SPUI --SPUI (T - C) 21:16, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Threaded discussion moved to talk.

Comment by others:

I've moved some conversations to talk that weren't moving towards a resolution. - brenneman 02:18, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Where it says "have maintained before and during the Arbitration case" I'd like to see a list of diffs with a dated timeline, showing clearly where they say this. - brenneman 02:25, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

JohnnyBGood 16:49, 13 June 2006

PHenry 20:44, 13 June 2006

more diffs on request

--SPUI (T - C) 02:29, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

As far as I can tell/remember, I have called the page moves vandalism exactly twice. Once indirectly, once directly although carefully phrased to not be a personal attack. This is far from "persistent", nor did I "maintain before and after the Arbitration case". We are not all equally culpable here. -- Northenglish (talk) -- 07:53, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

As far as I can remember—although I wouldn't swear to it—I've characterized SPUI's moves as vandalism exactly once, at the above referenced diff. Specifically, I said that "being provocative and showing people that he'll never quit until he gets what he wants … certainly qualifies as vandalism in my book." And in my book, it still does. Nonetheless, I've gone and read WP:VAND thoroughly, and that page specifically says that neither "bullying or stubbornness" nor "apparent bad-faith edits that do not make their bad-faith nature inarguably explicit" meet the Misplaced Pages definition of vandalism. So I'm willing to retract any claims I have made that they do, and will not make any more. (Although in this case I don't really see a practical difference between vandalism and SPUI's non-vandalism; both involve intentionally adding more heat than light to a discussion.) —phh (/_c) 16:09, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Valid point; however, couldn't one say that SPUI's statement I'm very leery of binding arbitration, as I know I'm correct and Freakofnurture's claim that he pwned us constitute make their bad faith nature inarguably explicit? As I said before, IMHO, the page moves were done in bad faith. -- Northenglish (talk) -- 17:41, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to see where anyone stating that they believe it to be vandalism after two to three months of continued reversion and scoffing at objections (on both sides, this isn't aimed at just SPUI) is against any policy or guideline. I've looked and can't find any myself. Also I'd like to know why SPUI is being ganged up and singled out on this Arbcom. Don't get me wrong, I was never fond of the guy when I was debating him and yes he's abrasive, but then so are many users, myself included. Why isn't the conduct of other users in this dispute coming into question or at least being taken seriously? SPUI is only one guy and as they say it does take two to tango. Gateman1997 05:00, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Maybe SPUI is being "ganged up" on because he is the sole bad actor here to any significant degree. If you or anyone else has any evidence of me engaging in behavior that's worthy of consideration by the ArbCom, now would be the time to provide it. —phh (/_c) 05:58, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

(recused, not clerk here): This is quite clear, so SPUI's statement is correct as far as it goes. JohnnyBGood has very recently reaffirmed that he equates SPUI's good faith edits with vandalism. --Tony Sidaway 14:31, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

No one's arguing that we have called SPUI's edits vandalism. However, this is not all SPUI's statement says. He says, that we persist in calling his edits vandalism, and have "maintained" this "before and after the Arbitration case." When asked to cite this, SPUI cited only one instance each of us calling it vandalism, which hardly constitutes persistence, and does nothing to confirm that we maintained it before and after that Arbitration case. SPUI's statement is correct to a very short extent, not as far as it goes. -- Northenglish (talk) -- 17:50, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

OK - so you don't believe my moves to be vandalism? If so, I'll remove you from this section. --SPUI (T - C) 17:59, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

What is it you have against understanding what I say? I do believe that your page moves are disruption and thus border on vandalism. (If you want me "be bold", then yes, I do, although I believe it's a matter of opinion.) However, I have not "persisted in misrepresenting SPUI's moves as vandalism", nor have I "maintained before and during the Arbitration case that reversions of SPUI's moves are 'reverting vandalism'." The first sentence of this section is not only factually incorrect, but also grammatically incorrect, now that you have falsely included PHenry and I in this section. -- Northenglish (talk) -- 18:10, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

What he said. With the following added. While I think they are borderline vandalism now I didn't always. It was after good faith was exhausted that I came to this conclusion. So I don't know if I'd call that "persisting" as well. I'd call it a sad conclusion after months of warring and the developed absense of good faith on SPUI's part. That's my opinion on the matter and I'm sticking to it. Now is it possible SPUI was acting in good faith, sure it's always possible, but after 2-3 months of thumbing his nose at everyone I'm inclinded to doubt it. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 18:42, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

"I still stand my my assertion that reverting his moves was reverting vandalism." --SPUI (T - C) 19:09, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Yep. After two months I view reverting your moves of these pages to be reverting bad faith edits (aka borderline vandalism). Restating it a dozen times doesn't change the fact that I have a right to view it as possible vandalism if the moves were done in anything but good faith, which I don't think were done with. You exhausted WP:AGF a long time ago on those moves. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 19:12, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

As I said - you believe them to be vandalism. What more is there to say? --SPUI (T - C) 19:17, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely nothing. I'm just wondering why at this point it matters? Viewing your edits as vandalism as we established earlier isn't against the rules, I believe you termed it a "Bad Thing". Whatever that means. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 19:21, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

SPUI has attempted to intimidate User:Northenglish into leaving Misplaced Pages

1) SPUI has suggested three times, with escalating levels of hostility, that Northenglish leave Misplaced Pages if he is not willing to come around to SPUI's point of view. All three were in response to civil and inoffensive comments by Northenglish, as can be seen from the diffs provided:

1. "Which is why this project would be better off without you. I know that the moves opposing me are all in good faith; they're just wrong."
2. "I suggest you leave until you realize that.… I'm serious. You seem unwilling to grasp the way we do disambiguation here on Misplaced Pages. The door's waiting."
3. "I say again - get out of here until you understand that."

Comment by Arbitrators:

My way or the highway. I am even more firmly convince that SPUI should be forced out of the fight, no matter how correct he is. Fred Bauder 12:47, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

In a previous arbitration case, the ArbCom found that two editors who suggested that a person involved in the case leave the project was harassment, and dealt with it here and here. —phh (/_c) 00:22, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Given Northenglish's (and others') misunderstanding of the way Misplaced Pages works, with respect to vandalism and disambiguation, it might be best for him to take a break until he understands them better. My wording may not have been the best, but the meaning is something that should not be a probsem - hell, how many ArbCom decisions end with someone banned? Are we to charge the ArbCom with harassment for forcing people to take breaks (as Fred suggests above)? --SPUI (T - C) 19:21, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

ArbCom decisions end with someone being banned for flagrantly disobeying policy, not for misunderstanding disambiguation guidelines (which I contend I do not). From what I have read, most ArbCom cases do not end in someone being banned altogehter, rather they are restrained (put on probation), and temporarily blocked when they violate their probation. Fred did not suggest you leave Misplaced Pages or be banned, merely that you leave this fight due to your incivility. In this case, no one except you has suggested that anyone leave Misplaced Pages or be banned, once jokingly about yourself, and now about me. -- Northenglish (talk) -- 21:37, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

While he was very abrasive in those diffs, I doubt SPUI was serious. I would ask he tone it down, but I don't think this was at all sanctionable. Gateman1997 05:26, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Give me a break. He says "I'm serious," and you conclude from this that he's not serious? What does "I'm serious" mean, if not "I'm serious"? —phh (/_c) 06:01, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Block activity by Rschen7754

1) Roughly half of Rschen7754 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)'s block activity is directly related to this case. In late March, he blocked SPUI (talk · contribs) and Locke Cole (talk · contribs), with both of whom Rschen7754 was engaged in active editing disputes. Additionally, Rschen7754 unblocked Gateman1997 (talk · contribs) and JohnnyBGood (talk · contribs), two other users actively engaging SPUI in editing disputes, who were suspected of mutual sockpuppetry. In April, when JohnnyBGood was blocked for continued personal attacks, Rschen7754 reduced JohnnyBGood's block to one hour.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I believe this demonstrates that Rschen7754's use of block/unblock stems primarily from frustration with the content dispute, rather than an objective sense of maintaining order. — Jun. 14, '06 <freak|talk>

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Naming convention discussions shall be centralized

1) To avoid confusion and uncertainty, the ArbCom shall designate a single page where editors are to discuss and agree upon naming conventions for state highways. Involved parties shall prominently link to said page from any other pages where such discussion might reasonably be expected to take place, so that other editors will know how they can discuss and contribute to the naming convention decisions. Any votes, consensus, etc. taking place on any page other than the designated one shall not be considered authoritative.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I suppose that if each state is to have its own naming convention, which I would prefer not to see happen, then the authoritative discussions could be devolved to pages within the various state highway WikiProjects where the actual decisions would take place, and the single designated page referenced above could function as a "central clearinghouse" of links to these state pages. —phh (/_c) 18:06, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Why shouldn't each state have its own convention? --SPUI (T - C) 00:41, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree with SPUI here. As nice as it would be to try and wrap up 50 states or the whole world in one discussion it would probably be more accurate and constructive to take each state individually as they all have different traits both official and in local usage to take into account when deciding their names. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 23:45, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Rschen7754 cautioned about blocking policy

1) Rschen7754 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) is cautioned to avoid blocking users who are his opponents in an editing dispute, and to avoid unblocking users who are opponents of his opponents in an editing dispute.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

If for no other reason than to simply ensure that the "conflict of interest" question never arises. — Jun. 14, '06 <freak|talk>

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Analysis of evidence

Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

General discussion

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others: