all proposed

After considering /Evidence and discussing proposals with other arbitrators, parties and others at /Workshop place proposals which are ready for voting here.

Arbitrators should vote for or against each point or abstain.

Only items that receive a majority "support" vote will be passed.
Items that receive a majority "oppose" vote will be formally rejected.
Items that do not receive a majority "support" or "oppose" vote will be open to possible amendment by any Arbitrator if she/he so chooses. After the amendment process is complete, the item will be voted on one last time.

Conditional votes for or against and abstentions should be explained by the Arbitrator before or after his/her time-stamped signature. For example, an Arbitrator can state that she/he would only favor a particular remedy based on whether or not another remedy/remedies were passed.

On this case, no arbitrators are recused and 3 are inactive, so 6 votes are a majority.

For all items

Proposed wording to be modified by Arbitrators and then voted on. Non-Arbitrators may comment on the talk page.

Motions and requests by the parties

Place those on /Workshop.

Proposed temporary injunctions

Four net "support" votes needed to pass (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support")
24 hours from the first vote is normally the fastest an injunction will be imposed.

Highway moves

1) Until the conclusion of this case, no party may move a highway-related article except to correct page-move vandalism. Violators may be blocked for up to 24 hours.

Support:

Dmcdevit· t 21:13, 5 June 2006 (UTC) reply
~~Fred Bauder 19:21, 6 June 2006 (UTC)~~ see Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Highways/Proposed decision and SPUI ( talk · contribs) contributions. Fred Bauder 12:43, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Fred Bauder 23:38, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Per Fred's comment. - SimonP 00:42, 9 June 2006 (UTC) reply
➥the Epopt 21:19, 15 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Abstain:

SPUI restrained

2) Until the conclusion of this case, SPUI is forbidden to move a highway-related article except to correct page-move vandalism. If SPUI violates this order he may be blocked for up to 24 hours.

Support:

Fred Bauder 16:44, 9 June 2006 (UTC) reply
➥the Epopt 21:19, 15 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Template

1) {text of proposed orders}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Proposed final decision Information

Proposed principles

Assume good faith

1) Assume good faith in the absence of evidence to the contrary. This keeps the project workable in the face of many widely variant points of view and avoids inadvertent personal attacks and disruption through creation of an unfriendly editing environment, and keeps with our long-standing tradition of being open and welcoming.

Support:

Neutrality^talk 17:54, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Fred Bauder 12:32, 9 June 2006 (UTC) reply
SimonP 00:17, 10 June 2006 (UTC) reply
James F. (talk) 13:18, 10 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Dmcdevit· t 03:54, 15 June 2006 (UTC) reply
➥the Epopt 21:22, 15 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 20:36, 21 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Mindspillage (spill yours?) 05:21, 26 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Jayjg ^(talk) 21:33, 30 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Civility/disruption/reasonableness

2) Civility, disruption, and reasonableness:

Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably in their dealings with other users and to observe the principles of assuming good faith, civility, and the writers' rules of engagement. If disputes arise, users are expected to use dispute resolution procedures instead of making personal attacks.
Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. This is considered editing in bad faith. State your point, but don't attempt to illustrate it experimentally.
Editing in a manner so as to intentionally provoke other editors is a form of trolling and goes against established Wikipedia policies, as well as the spirit of Wikipedia and the will of its editors.
Insulting and intimidating other users harms the community by creating a hostile environment. All users are instructed to refrain from this activity. Admins are instructed to use good judgement while enforcing this policy. All users are encouraged to remove personal attacks on sight.

Support:

Neutrality^talk 17:54, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Fred Bauder 12:32, 9 June 2006 (UTC) reply
SimonP 00:17, 10 June 2006 (UTC) reply
James F. (talk) 13:18, 10 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Dmcdevit· t 03:54, 15 June 2006 (UTC) reply
➥the Epopt 21:22, 15 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 20:36, 21 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Mindspillage (spill yours?) 05:21, 26 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Jayjg ^(talk) 21:33, 30 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Ownership of articles

3) Wikipedia pages do not have owners or custodians who control edits to them. Instead, they are "owned" by the community at large, which comes to a consensus version by means of discussion, negotiation, and/or voting. See Wikipedia:Ownership of articles and Wikipedia:Be bold in updating pages

Support:

Neutrality^talk 17:54, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Fred Bauder 12:32, 9 June 2006 (UTC) reply
SimonP 00:17, 10 June 2006 (UTC) reply
James F. (talk) 13:18, 10 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Dmcdevit· t 03:54, 15 June 2006 (UTC) reply
➥the Epopt 21:22, 15 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 20:36, 21 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Mindspillage (spill yours?) 05:21, 26 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Jayjg ^(talk) 21:33, 30 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

No personal attacks

4) Personal attacks are expressly prohibited because they make Wikipedia a hostile environment for editors, and thereby damage Wikipedia both as an encyclopedia (by losing valued contributors) and as a wiki community (by discouraging reasoned discussion). Wikipedia editors should conduct their relationship with other editors with courtesy, and must avoid responding in kind when personally attacked.

Support:

Neutrality^talk 17:54, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Fred Bauder 12:32, 9 June 2006 (UTC) reply
SimonP 00:17, 10 June 2006 (UTC) reply
James F. (talk) 13:18, 10 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Dmcdevit· t 03:54, 15 June 2006 (UTC) reply
➥the Epopt 21:22, 15 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 20:36, 21 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Mindspillage (spill yours?) 05:21, 26 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Jayjg ^(talk) 21:33, 30 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Edit warring

5) Edit wars or revert wars are usually considered harmful, because they cause ill-will between users and negatively destabilize articles. Editors are encourage to explore alternate methods of dispute resolution, such as negotiation, surveys, requests for comment, mediation, or arbitration. When disagreements arise, users are expected to adhere to the three-revert rule and discuss their differences rationally rather than reverting ad nauseum. "Slow revert wars," where an editor persistently reverts an article but technically adheres to the three-revert rule are also strongly discouraged and are unlikely to constitute working properly with others. All of this applies to page moves.

Support:

Neutrality^talk 17:54, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Fred Bauder 12:32, 9 June 2006 (UTC) reply
SimonP 00:17, 10 June 2006 (UTC) reply
James F. (talk) 13:18, 10 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Dmcdevit· t 03:54, 15 June 2006 (UTC) reply
➥the Epopt 21:22, 15 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 20:36, 21 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Mindspillage (spill yours?) 05:21, 26 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Jayjg ^(talk) 21:33, 30 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Alternative forms

6) In cases where there are two or more acceptable form of spelling or title, disambiguation and redirects are used to assist the reader in finding articles on the subject. In instances where there is no clear basis for preference of one usage over another, an arbitrary decision may be made, for example, in the case of British versus American spelling the article created first determines the title.

Support:

Fred Bauder 14:05, 9 June 2006 (UTC) reply
In the absence of any agreed upon policy or convention, users are free to pick a name. - SimonP 00:17, 10 June 2006 (UTC) reply
James F. (talk) 13:18, 10 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Per Simon, and where, in the absence of any agreed upon policy or convention, users have picked a name, there shall be no warring over said name, and no changing until there is an agreed upon policy or convention. Dmcdevit· t 03:54, 15 June 2006 (UTC) reply
➥the Epopt 21:22, 15 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 20:36, 21 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Mindspillage (spill yours?) 05:21, 26 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Jayjg ^(talk) 21:33, 30 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Conscious responsible editing

7) Wikipedia editors and administrators are expected to notice when a conflict occurs between alternate forms and to use and accept an effective decision making process, arbitrary if necessary, which settles the conflict.

Support:

Fred Bauder 14:05, 9 June 2006 (UTC) reply
SimonP 00:17, 10 June 2006 (UTC) reply
James F. (talk) 13:18, 10 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Dmcdevit· t 03:54, 15 June 2006 (UTC) reply
➥the Epopt 21:22, 15 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 20:36, 21 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Mindspillage (spill yours?) 05:21, 26 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Jayjg ^(talk) 21:33, 30 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Use of parenthesis for disambiguation

8) Parentheses are frequently used for disambiguation on Wikipedia, Wikipedia:Disambiguation and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages) but their use is not a required method.

Support:

Fred Bauder 14:05, 9 June 2006 (UTC) reply
SimonP 00:17, 10 June 2006 (UTC) reply
James F. (talk) 13:18, 10 June 2006 (UTC) Though I prefer the below would be of great benefit to clarity here. reply
Dmcdevit· t 03:54, 15 June 2006 (UTC) reply
➥the Epopt 21:22, 15 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 20:36, 21 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Mindspillage (spill yours?) 05:21, 26 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Jayjg ^(talk) 21:33, 30 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

... is discouraged

8) Parentheses are frequently used for disambiguation on Wikipedia, Wikipedia:Disambiguation and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages) but their use is often discouraged, as a great many find them an ugly intrusion.

Support:

James F. (talk) 13:18, 10 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Is this discouragement common practice, or personal preference? I'll support the former, but Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Page naming conventions doesn't seem to agree... Dmcdevit· t 03:54, 15 June 2006 (UTC) reply
It's a new set of changes to policy that don't seem to have that much support, but don't have anyone caring enough to significantly oppose. James F. (talk) 15:50, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply
➥the Epopt 21:22, 15 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Fred Bauder 17:33, 19 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Abstain:

I would support this if "is often discouraged" is changed to "is discouraged where avoidable". This seems clearer and more in line with existing policy. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 20:36, 21 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Surely that would be facetious - where on Earth would it not be "avoidable", exactly? :-) James F. (talk) 19:29, 30 June 2006 (UTC) reply
OK, "reasonably avoidable"? Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 21:15, 3 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Would prefer not to state this as a principle if the force of established practice isn't behind it yet. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 05:21, 26 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Perhaps it would be more accurate to say "as much of late" rather than "yet". James F. (talk) 19:29, 30 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Jayjg ^(talk) 21:33, 30 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Making arbitrary decisions

9) When an arbitrary decision is called for, it should be made by those users and administrators in a position to do so. Sometimes any decision is better than no decision.

Support:

Fred Bauder 14:05, 9 June 2006 (UTC) reply
James F. (talk) 13:18, 10 June 2006 (UTC) Where all actions are reversible, progress is better than indecision. This is a corrollary of "Be Bold When Editing Pages". reply
Though I'm sot so sure this appies to polcy iself so much as general behavior and interpreting policy. Dmcdevit· t 03:54, 15 June 2006 (UTC) reply
➥the Epopt 21:22, 15 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 20:36, 21 June 2006 (UTC) reply
True and so often overlooked. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 05:21, 26 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Jayjg ^(talk) 21:33, 30 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

I'm not sure what this means. It seems to imply that admins and users can simply declare a policy. In reality even arbitrary rules should be developed through discussion and consensus. - SimonP 00:17, 10 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Accepting an arbitrary decision

10) When an arguably arbitrary decision has been made, unless there is a substantial basis for changing it, the decision should be accepted.

Support:

Fred Bauder 14:05, 9 June 2006 (UTC) reply
SimonP 00:17, 10 June 2006 (UTC) reply
James F. (talk) 13:18, 10 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Dmcdevit· t 03:54, 15 June 2006 (UTC) reply
➥the Epopt 21:22, 15 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 20:36, 21 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Follows from the previous, else what's the use? Mindspillage (spill yours?) 05:21, 26 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Jayjg ^(talk) 21:33, 30 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Guidelines not binding

11) Wikipedia:Guidelines, while recommended, are not binding, and may be varied from in appropriate circumstances.

Support:

Fred Bauder 16:10, 9 June 2006 (UTC) reply
SimonP 00:17, 10 June 2006 (UTC) reply
James F. (talk) 13:18, 10 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Apply common sense. In general, they should hold up to the common sense test, as should policy, which is why we give them those designations, but neither are binding when they fail. Dmcdevit· t 03:54, 15 June 2006 (UTC) reply
➥the Epopt 21:22, 15 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 20:36, 21 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Mindspillage (spill yours?) 05:21, 26 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Jayjg ^(talk) 21:33, 30 June 2006 (UTC) Added "while recommended", feel free to remove. reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Restrictions on editing

12) The editing by users who disrupt Wikipedia or Wikipedia articles may be restricted.

Support:

Fred Bauder 16:10, 9 June 2006 (UTC) reply
SimonP 00:17, 10 June 2006 (UTC) reply
James F. (talk) 13:18, 10 June 2006 (UTC) I imagine it's the editing by, not of, users to which this is meant to refer. :-) reply
Dmcdevit· t 03:54, 15 June 2006 (UTC) reply
➥the Epopt 21:22, 15 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 20:36, 21 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Mindspillage (spill yours?) 05:21, 26 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Jayjg ^(talk) 21:33, 30 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Many ways

13) There is often more than one good way to accomplish a task.

Support:

Fred Bauder 16:32, 9 June 2006 (UTC) reply
SimonP 00:17, 10 June 2006 (UTC) reply
James F. (talk) 13:18, 10 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Dmcdevit· t 03:54, 15 June 2006 (UTC) reply
➥the Epopt 21:22, 15 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 20:36, 21 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Mindspillage (spill yours?) 05:21, 26 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Jayjg ^(talk) 21:33, 30 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Proposed findings of fact

Locus of dispute

1) SPUI ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who does a great deal of work on highway articles, allegedly has been too aggressive with respect to his view of the proper names of state highways, notably "California state route" or in the alternative "state route (California)", Talk:State Route 2 (California). SPUI is accused of "move warring". According to SPUI, "On Wikipedia, we disambiguate using parentheses".

Support:

Fred Bauder 12:51, 9 June 2006 (UTC) reply
~~SimonP 00:26, 10 June 2006 (UTC)~~ reply
James F. (talk) 13:18, 10 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

This is not an accurate portrayal of events. At the least, the dispute is between many move-warring parties. Dmcdevit· t 03:54, 15 June 2006 (UTC) reply
1.1 more accurate, if more vague. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 20:36, 21 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Abstain:

Jayjg ^(talk) 21:35, 30 June 2006 (UTC) Prefer 1.1 reply

Alternative

1.1) A number of editors have been unable to reach consensus regarding state highway naming conventions. The use of disambiguating parentheses is in dispute, for instance "California state route" versus "state route (California)" ( Talk:State Route 2 (California)). Many of the participants in this dispute, including SPUI, PHenry, Freakofnurture, JohnnyBGood, and Rschen7754, have resorted to move warring, making mass page moves to their preferred convention without consensus.

Support:

Dmcdevit· t 03:54, 15 June 2006 (UTC) reply
➥the Epopt 21:22, 15 June 2006 (UTC) reply
This is a more accurate description. SimonP 01:55, 16 June 2006 (UTC) reply
This is also an accurate description. It is more wide-ranging, and less like normal Arbitration rulings, however. James F. (talk) 15:51, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 20:36, 21 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Fred Bauder 03:37, 23 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Mindspillage (spill yours?) 05:27, 26 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Jayjg ^(talk) 21:35, 30 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Ambiguous terminology

2) 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, State highway#Terminology, see highway 17 and highway 19 for examples.

Support:

Fred Bauder 12:43, 9 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

I must say I really have no clue as to U.S. highway naming policies. - SimonP 00:26, 10 June 2006 (UTC) reply
James F. (talk) 13:18, 10 June 2006 (UTC) Same as Simon. reply
Dmcdevit· t 03:54, 15 June 2006 (UTC) reply
I don't know anything about said policies, nor do I actually think they are relevant here. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 20:36, 21 June 2006 (UTC) reply
As above. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 05:27, 26 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Jayjg ^(talk) 21:35, 30 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Failure to reach consensus

3) Following an extended debate on the form to be used for California state highways Nightstallion ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) declared that there was "no consensus" Talk:State Route 2 (California). After extended move warring and extended discussion, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject California State Highways#SPUI and JohnnyBGood move wars, the current suggested usage at Wikipedia:WikiProject California State Highways#Article Naming Convention is "California State Route XXX".

Support:

Fred Bauder 14:14, 9 June 2006 (UTC) reply
SimonP 00:26, 10 June 2006 (UTC) reply
James F. (talk) 13:18, 10 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Dmcdevit· t 03:54, 15 June 2006 (UTC) reply
➥the Epopt 21:22, 15 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 20:36, 21 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Mindspillage (spill yours?) 05:27, 26 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Jayjg ^(talk) 21:35, 30 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

SPUI insists he is right

4) SPUI rejected binding arbitration of the naming dispute on the basis that his position was "correct" [1]. He has repeatedly asserted that disambiguation by parenthesis was the Wikipedia method of disambiguation. "Whether there was consensus - or groupthink - is immaterial. What matters is correctness. --SPUI (T - C) 00:10, 8 June 2006 (UTC)" [2]

Support:

Fred Bauder 16:22, 9 June 2006 (UTC) reply
SimonP 00:26, 10 June 2006 (UTC) reply
James F. (talk) 13:18, 10 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Dmcdevit· t 03:54, 15 June 2006 (UTC) reply
➥the Epopt 21:22, 15 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 20:36, 21 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Mindspillage (spill yours?) 05:27, 26 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Jayjg ^(talk) 21:35, 30 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Efforts to reach consensus have become unworkably complex

5) Over the past four months, failed efforts have been made to formally address the Wikipedia state highway naming convention at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (numbered highways), Wikipedia:WikiProject Highways/U.S. state highway naming conventions, Talk:California State Highway 2, Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads, Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-03-12 U.S. Roads, Wikipedia: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, and it has made reaching and judging any consensus difficult.

Support:

Dmcdevit· t 03:54, 15 June 2006 (UTC) reply
James F. (talk) 15:52, 17 June 2006 (UTC) Though not sure where this is going. reply
Per James. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 20:36, 21 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Fred Bauder 03:39, 23 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Mindspillage (spill yours?) 05:27, 26 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Per James. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:35, 30 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Participants have been uncivil

6) JohnnyBGood has mischaracterized SPUI's actions in this content dispute as vandalism, and continues to do so currently ( [3]), depite having been informed of Wikipedia's definition of vandalism, and that his words constitute incivility. SPUI has also been uncivil to other editors during this dispute ( [4], [5], [6]).

Support:

Dmcdevit· t 03:54, 15 June 2006 (UTC) reply
SimonP 01:54, 16 June 2006 (UTC) reply
James F. (talk) 15:52, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 20:36, 21 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Fred Bauder 03:39, 23 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Mindspillage (spill yours?) 05:27, 26 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Jayjg ^(talk) 21:35, 30 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

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.

SPUI to defer to other users regarding naming conventions

1) 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.

Support:

Fred Bauder 16:24, 9 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

SPUI does not seem to be the only user to blame, and since other users agree with him, he could simply defer to them and continue warring with others. SimonP 00:45, 10 June 2006 (UTC) reply
James F. (talk) 13:18, 10 June 2006 (UTC) Yeah. Not sure that this is the mot juste. reply
He should defer to a consensual naming convention... Dmcdevit· t 03:54, 15 June 2006 (UTC) reply
➥the Epopt 21:22, 15 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 20:36, 21 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Mindspillage (spill yours?) 05:39, 26 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Jayjg ^(talk) 21:37, 30 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Abstain:

Probation

2) Should SPUI disrupt the editing of any article which concerns highways he may be banned by any administrator from that article or related articles. All bans to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Highways#Log of blocks and bans.

Support:

Fred Bauder 16:28, 9 June 2006 (UTC) reply
James F. (talk) 13:18, 10 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Second choice, but this is an unfair assiging of blame. I have proposed below this for all the major move-warriors. Dmcdevit· t 03:54, 15 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Jayjg ^(talk) 21:37, 30 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

This is too broad, we are only talking about one aspect, the names, there is no evidence of wider disruption. - SimonP 00:45, 10 June 2006 (UTC) reply
See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_California_State_Highways#Infobox_decision Fred Bauder 15:16, 10 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Unfairly singles out SPUI. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 05:39, 26 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Abstain:

Prefer 2.1. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 20:36, 21 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Probation (all major move warriors)

2.1) Should SPUI, JohnnyBGood, Rschen7754, and PHenry disrupt the editing of any article which concerns highways he or she may be banned by any administrator from that article or related articles. All bans are to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Highways#Log of blocks and bans.

Support:

Dmcdevit· t 03:54, 15 June 2006 (UTC) reply
SimonP 01:53, 16 June 2006 (UTC) reply
James F. (talk) 15:52, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 20:36, 21 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Mindspillage (spill yours?) 05:39, 26 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Jayjg ^(talk) 21:37, 30 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Fred Bauder 03:40, 23 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Abstain:

Follow standard procedures

3) Prior to moving any group of U.S. highway articles consensus should be sought at the relevant project page. 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.

Support:

We have an exising system for dealing with page name disputes, why not use it? SimonP 00:45, 10 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Individual move requests are inappropriate for deciding naming conventions. James F. (talk) 13:18, 10 June 2006 (UTC) reply
If the results of WP:RM debates do help hammer out a policy, good, but I don't want anyone to think that the Arbitration Committee has ruled that the results of those votes are policy by our order. Dmcdevit· t 03:54, 15 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 20:36, 21 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Fred Bauder 03:41, 23 June 2006 (UTC) reply
per Dmcdevit Mindspillage (spill yours?) 05:39, 26 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Jayjg ^(talk) 21:37, 30 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Abstain:

Blocks for other mass moves

4) Any user who moves multiple U.S. highway articles without first seeking consensus, or who begins moves in opposition to an existing consensus or Requested Moves decision may be blocked for a short time by any administrator.

Support:

SimonP 00:45, 10 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Fred Bauder 03:42, 23 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

James F. (talk) 13:18, 10 June 2006 (UTC) Not sure about this tangent. reply
This seems an unnecessary extension of policy. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 20:36, 21 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Per Sam. Users can be blocked for disruption in general, which disruptive moving would certainly fall under, highways or not. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 05:39, 26 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Per Sam. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:37, 30 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Abstain:

Consensus encouraged

5) At present, none of the disputants has demonstrated that consensus exists for their preferred convention. The Arbitration Committee encourages the community to adopt a formal policy on the naming of state highways as quickly as possible so as to reduce conflict.

Support:

SimonP 00:45, 10 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Dmcdevit· t 03:54, 15 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Although I agree with James that this is fairly observational, I still think it is a good point to note. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 20:36, 21 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Fred Bauder 03:42, 23 June 2006 (UTC) reply
No, this doesn't have teeth; it can't. But it is a strong recommendation. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 05:39, 26 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Nice idea, anyway. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:37, 30 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Not sure that this is really a remedy, more an observation. Perhaps an FoF or Principle- "The lack of existence of a formal naming convention for this topic has not helped the significant conflict which could have been avoided"? James F. (talk) 15:55, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Perhaps it's not a remedy, it certainly doesn't have teeth, but I think it's sensible. It's certainly more helpful for the Arbitration Committee to be seen to be encouraging community consensus (which, obviously, we can't magic into existence) than to be seen to observing it's lack of existence. Dmcdevit· t 00:40, 23 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Controversial moves

6) Until a formal naming convention policy regarding state highways is reached, no page shall be moved from one controversial name to another. It is understood that this will result in some inconsistency of names until a policy is reached, but, without a policy, inconsistency is the best option available.

Support:

Dmcdevit· t 03:54, 15 June 2006 (UTC) reply
SimonP 01:53, 16 June 2006 (UTC) reply
James F. (talk) 15:53, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 20:36, 21 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Fred Bauder 03:43, 23 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Mindspillage (spill yours?) 05:39, 26 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Jayjg ^(talk) 21:37, 30 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Parties warned for incivility

7) JohnnyBGood and SPUI are warned to remain civil at all times; in particular, JohnnyBGood is reminded not to refer to good faith edits as vandalism. All participants in this dispute are encouraged to maintain a courteous atmosphere.

Support:

Dmcdevit· t 19:12, 15 June 2006 (UTC) reply
SimonP 01:53, 16 June 2006 (UTC) reply
James F. (talk) 15:53, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 20:36, 21 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Fred Bauder 03:44, 23 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Mindspillage (spill yours?) 05:39, 26 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Jayjg ^(talk) 21:37, 30 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Highways#Probation

Moved that JohnnyBGood, Rschen7754, and PHenry be removed from the probation imposed at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Highways#Probation. Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Highways#Log_of_blocks_and_bans shows that only SPUI continues disruption with respect to highway names. Fred Bauder 20:47, 26 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Support:

Fred Bauder 20:47, 26 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

That the probation is alleged to be failing in regards to SPUI does not appear to be a good argument to remove it for the precise editors it appears to be succeeding for. Matthew Brown (Morven) ( T: C) 21:47, 27 October 2006 (UTC) reply
PHenry ~~and JohnnyBGood~~ both left the project. That doesn't demonstrate good behavior, even though they may have empty block logs. Rschen does have a block for violation. Dmcdevit· t 08:55, 1 November 2006 (UTC) reply
To expand, I'm not confident that the probation isn't still helping. The time doesn't seem right. Dmcdevit· t 08:51, 18 November 2006 (UTCP)
concur with Morven ➥the Epopt 14:24, 18 November 2006 :# (UTC)
Charles Matthews 19:55, 18 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Abstain:

SPUI

With respect to Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Highways#Probation based on block log SPUI's block log and the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#SPUI.._again SPUI ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is banned from Wikipedia for one year. Fred Bauder 10:49, 9 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Support:

Fred Bauder 10:49, 9 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

While there are a number of blocks, I only count 3 related to his probation conditions. Matthew Brown (Morven) ( T: C) 08:23, 10 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Agree with both Matt and Dmcdevit. - SimonP 16:01, 15 November 2006 (UTC) reply
concur with Dmcdevit: the community can do it ➥the Epopt 14:25, 18 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Charles Matthews 19:55, 18 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Abstain:

There is already a provision in our original decision for a longer term block in the case of incorrigibility. "After 5 blocks the maximum block shall increase to one year." The community is free to impose bans before then, of course, but I don't see the need for our intervention. Dmcdevit· t 08:42, 10 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Proposed enforcement

Enforcement by block

1) Should any parties placed on Probation violate any ban imposed under this decision he may be briefly blocked, up to a week in the event of repeat offenses. After 5 blocks the maximum block shall increase to one year.

Support:

Fred Bauder 16:30, 9 June 2006 (UTC) reply
James F. (talk) 13:18, 10 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Dmcdevit· t 03:54, 15 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 20:36, 21 June 2006 (UTC) reply
SimonP 20:21, 24 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Mindspillage (spill yours?) 05:44, 26 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Jayjg ^(talk) 21:37, 30 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Enforcement of moves without consensus

2) If any participant to this dispute moves a state highway page to their preferred convention before a formal policy has been reached, he or she may be blocked for a short time of up to a week for repeated offenses. In the case of such moves by other editors, they shall be warned and/or blocked at administrator discretion.

Support:

Dmcdevit· t 03:54, 15 June 2006 (UTC) reply
SimonP 01:54, 16 June 2006 (UTC) reply
James F. (talk) 15:53, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 20:36, 21 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Fred Bauder 03:44, 23 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Mindspillage (spill yours?) 05:44, 26 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Jayjg ^(talk) 21:37, 30 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Discussion by Arbitrators Information

General

I am aware that SPUI could not have had this dispute by himself and that others also edit or move warred. I realize the proposals I have made are arbitrary in that SPUI was selected as being "wrong". I do not think that reflects the actual situation. He was just as right as his opponents. I simply propose a solution of a senseless disagreement. Fred Bauder 16:39, 9 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Motion to close

Implementation notes

Clerks and arbitrators should use this section to clarify their understanding of the final decision--at a minimum, a list of items that have passed. Additionally, a list of which remedies are conditional on others (for instance a ban that should only be implemented if a mentorship should fail), and so on. Arbitrators should not pass the motion until they are satisfied with the implementation notes.

Vote

Four net "support" votes needed to close case (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support")
24 hours from the first motion is normally the fastest a case will close.

Close. Dmcdevit· t 17:24, 3 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Close Fred Bauder 21:09, 3 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Close. - SimonP 23:17, 3 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Close. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:24, 4 July 2006 (UTC) reply