Anyone, whether directly involved or not, may add evidence to this page. Please make a header for your evidence and sign your comments with your name.
When placing evidence here, please be considerate of the arbitrators and be concise. Long, rambling, or stream-of-conciousness rants are not helpful.
As such, it is extremely important that you use the prescribed format. Submitted evidence should include a link to the actual page diff; links to the page itself are not sufficient. For example, to cite the edit by Mennonot to the article Anomalous phenomenon adding a link to Hundredth Monkey use this form: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anomalous_phenomenon&diff=5587219&oldid=5584644] [1].
This page is not for general discussion - for that, see talk page.
Please make a section for your evidence and add evidence only in your own section. Please limit your evidence to a maximum 1000 words and 100 diffs, a much shorter, concise presentation is more likely to be effective. Please focus on the issues raised in the complaint and answer and on diffs which illustrate behavior which relates to the issues.
If you disagree with some evidence you see here, please cite the evidence in your own section and provide counter-evidence, or an explanation of why the evidence is misleading. Do not edit within the evidence section of any other user.
Be aware that the Arbitrators may at times rework this page to try to make it more coherent. If you are a participant in the case or a third party, please don't try to refactor the page, let the Arbitrators do it. If you object to evidence which is inserted by other participants or third parties please cite the evidence and voice your objections within your own section of the page. It is especially important to not remove evidence presented by others. If something is put in the wrong place, please leave it for the arbitrators to move.
The Arbitrators may analyze evidence and other assertions at /Workshop. /Workshop provides for comment by parties and others as well as arbitrators. After arriving at proposed principles, findings of fact or remedies voting by Arbitrators takes place at /Proposed decision. Only Arbitrators may edit /Proposed decision.
He calls his reversions of my moves "reverting vandalism".
On the other hand, Wikipedia:Vandalism clearly states that "any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism."
Wikipedia:No personal attacks#Examples that are not personal attacks says that this is not a personal attack, but also says "if the edit that is being reverted could be interpreted as a good-faith edit, then don't label it as vandalism." Wikipedia:No personal attacks#Examples says that "accusatory comments such as "Bob is a troll", or "Jane is a bad editor" can be considered personal attacks if said repeatedly, in bad faith, or with sufficient venom." As a vandal is a subset of "bad editor", and JohnnyBGood persists in calling SPUI a vandal, he is making personal attacks.
I'm new around here, so if I'm mis-speaking, apologies in advance, but I'm going to be bold. My intent is not to come down on one side or another of this issue, but to present something useful done by a participant...which might provide hints to a solution elsewhere, or common ground to work from.
When I first came aboard at Wikipedia, I got interested in working up a state highways WP for my own state, and WP:TXSH was born. After that, I saw all the move warring going on in California and Washington, and frankly, it made me nervous. Moreso on 22 April 2006, when User:SPUI made edits to the project page, adding completion lists (which can be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Texas State Highways/Completion list). Then I looked at them.
I work in libraries for a living, and deal a lot with librarians, and a LOT of what librarians worry about is what is the user likely to enter in the search box, and if they enter thus-and-so, will they get the result they are looking for. SPUI's solution on State highways in Texas demonstrates a clear disambiguation on the "main" page, and a number of redirects based on things that users *might* enter, along with an even more general disambiguator for the term "Route X". He put placeholders for all of these in the completion list for this project, and they make a lot of sense! The main page name leaves no doubt that it's a Texas highway, but anything that a user might possibly enter will still get them there, either via redirect or disambiguation. His structure for Farm to Market and Ranch to Market roads is similarly functional, and is, in fact, very easy to edit and make work! No one else at WP:TXSH has fussed, either, so I'm assuming that no one is upset enough about it to think we should do it any other way.
Should ArbCom choose to rule on the structuring of the content, I would strongly urge a look-see at the very useful structure set up by User:SPUI on the Texas State Highways project. I cannot imagine a case where a similar structure would be less useful in any other state.
As for the vitriolic edit warring between User:SPUI and User:Rschen7754 (among others), I have no evidence. Rschen7754 greeted me in a most friendly way when I came aboard, and SPUI and I have not communicated much. Rschen7754 asserts never to have been in Texas at WP:TXSH, and I don't know about SPUI (he's not listed on the Participants roster), so if an edit war starts between them, that proves, to me at least, that it's no longer about the content, but about the war. What SPUI has done in Texas is, for Texas, useful. Mileage may vary in other states, but I, for one, do not want similar warring going on in Texas!
Thanks to ArbCom, and to all the editors involved, for the work you do. Comments or requests for further discussion are welcome, either on my talk page or on the talk page for WP:TXSH.
The bulk of my evidence is intended to illustrate that the problem we've been having is due to intransigence and a refusal to seek consensus on the part of one specific editor, and that the great majority of the other editors who have become embroiled in this situation have indicated that they are ready and willing to seek a quick and harmonious compromise. —phh (t/c) 04:19, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
In SPUI's evidence section, he cited the following three pages: State Route 599 (Washington)
Only SPUI's fourth citation actually exhibits a case where the title "has an effect" on the text of the article. There remain several pages where the article title does not "have an effect" on the text of the article.[8] [9] [10]
Note how all three of the June 1 edits were done within minutes of each other. Freakofnurture has recently started to go through the pages he moved three weeks later to fix this oversight.
My guess is that this latest round of edits by Freakofnurture was sparked by a conversation I had with SPUI on Wikipedia:State route naming conventions poll, where SPUI originally made his claim that the title has an effect:
Allow me to clarify my "if you actually cared" line, and why this constitutes evidence related to the case, even ignoring content/style issues. If SPUI and Freakofnurture actually cared about the correct titles of these articles, they would edit the text of the article immediately after completing the move, not three weeks later after being caught in a lie by me. Their failure to do so constitutes (IMHO) frivolous editing and conduct detrimental to the encyclopedia.
The following evidence is meant mainly as additions to the last two sections of evidence presented by PHenry.
In an effort to explain my theory on "Washington State Route X" being a common name globally, I repeatedly ask SPUI a hypothetical question regarding Missouri State Highway 64: first hypothetical question; second hypothetical question
In order to seek/maintain consensus on using ((routeboxca2)) instead of SPUI's ((Infobox CA Route)), Rschen7754 calls for a vote.
Two months later, Rschen7754 suggests closing the poll and meets no objection in the next 20 hours (an admittedly short time).
Apparently, Wikipedia would be better off without me...
...so I should get out of here.
The debate regarding the Autobahn infobox is not as simple as JohnnyBGood makes it.
Wikipedia talk:Autobahn infobox template and Talk:Bundesautobahn 1 show that Doco does not have consensus for his alternative format. Thus in this case, SPUI has the status quo, and Doco is in the wrong.
See also: the talk page
SPUI has resorted to personally attacking opposing parties in this arbcom for expressing their opinion on evidence and/or user behavior related to the matter. [11] [12] [13] [14]
SPUI for unknown reasons has attempted to have this arbcom, which multiple users, both involved and uninvolved, have deemed useful and needed closed. I would call this a continued borderline disruption to trying to solve this overall issue. [15] [16] [17]
SPUI has moved his edit warring regarding what he deems "right" to articles on the German Autobahns now as evidenced here [18].
I question if SPUI's moves after 2 months of dispute were done in good faith after multiple editors had brought up multiple objections that SPUI then ignored rather vocally claiming he was "right". WP:AGF will only get you so far, and in this case SPUIs actions constituted continued disruption and borderline vandalism. WP:AGF makes it very clear that continued disruption is cause to no longer assume good faith, which was clearly a resonable response in this case. And pointing this out is not a personal attack just as according to Wikipedia:No personal attacks, "A comment in an edit history such as 'reverting vandalism' is not a personal attack." Surely this applies to talk pages as well as edit histories.
While I have not been harassed that much by SPUI, I was only a minor participant in this issue, having jumped in well after the issue had already gained steam and was chugging out of the station. Nontheless, I feel the other participants in this argument have some sound points: SPUI's moves are in questionable taste, and SPUI has attempted to hound other Wikipedians. — Rickyrab | Talk 17:44, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Way to go with your comment on "Route 18 (New Jersey)", SPUI...
[19] - For the record, goatse.cx (or goat.cx) was a website showing the infamous Goatse picture, which shows some guy opening up his derriere in front of the camera. Thus, mentioning it can be widely understood to be insulting. — Rickyrab | Talk 18:03, 15 June 2006 (UTC)