Wikipedia Arbitration
About arbitration Talk Arbitration policy (CU/OS) Guide to arbitration Noticeboard +  Talk Search archived proceedings Ban appeals Report
Open proceedings All open requests Case requests Clarification and Amendment requests Arbitrator motion requests Enforcement requests
Active sanctions Contentious topics ( Log) General sanctions Editor sanctions
Arbitration Committee Discuss + Contact Members Procedures Elections Talk History Clerks +  Talk Clerk procedures Conflict of interest reports
Audit Talk Statistics Talk Reports (pre-2016)
Track related changes
v t e

After considering /Evidence and discussing proposals with other arbitrators, parties, and editors at /Workshop, arbitrators may make proposals which are ready for voting. Arbitrators will vote for or against each provision, or they may abstain. Only items which are supported by an absolute majority of the active, non-recused arbitrators will pass into the final decision. Conditional votes and abstentions will be denoted as such by the arbitrator, before or after their time-stamped signature. For example, an arbitrator can state that their support vote for one provision only applies if another provision fails to pass (these are denoted as "first" and "second choice" votes). Only arbitrators and clerks may edit this page, but non-arbitrators may comment on the talk page.

For this case there are 12 active arbitrators, not counting 2 recused. 7 support or oppose votes are a majority.

If observing editors notice any discrepancies between the arbitrators' tallies and the final decision or the #Implementation notes, you should post to the clerk talk page. Similarly, arbitrators may request clerk assistance via the same method, or via the clerks' mailing list.

Arbitrators may place proposed motions affecting the case in this section for voting. Typical motions might be to close or dismiss a case without a full decision (a reason should normally be given), or to add an additional party (although this can also be done without a formal motion as long as the new party is on notice of the case). Suggestions by the parties or other non-arbitrators for motions or other requests should be placed on the /Workshop page for consideration and discussion.
Motions have the same majority for passage as the final decision.

1) {text of proposed motion}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

A temporary injunction is a directive from the Arbitration Committee that parties to the case, or other editors notified of the injunction, do or refrain from doing something while the case is pending.

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.

1) {text of proposed orders}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

1) The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content online encyclopedia. This is best achieved in an atmosphere of collegiality, camaraderie, and mutual respect among contributors. Use of the site for other purposes, such as advocacy or propaganda, the furtherance of outside conflicts, publishing or promoting original research, and political or ideological struggle, is prohibited.

Support:

1. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 22:48, 23 September 2011 (UTC) reply
2. The Cavalry ( Message me) 23:09, 23 September 2011 (UTC) reply
3. PhilKnight ( talk) 23:35, 23 September 2011 (UTC) reply
4. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 03:04, 24 September 2011 (UTC) reply
5. Bog standard. SirFozzie ( talk) 09:28, 24 September 2011 (UTC) reply
6. Where have I heard this one before? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^{( talk)} 16:55, 24 September 2011 (UTC) reply
7. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 03:52, 25 September 2011 (UTC) reply
8.   Roger Davies ^talk 06:54, 25 September 2011 (UTC) reply
9. Mailer Diablo 18:20, 25 September 2011 (UTC) reply
10. Risker ( talk) 23:51, 25 September 2011 (UTC) reply
11. Kirill  ^{[talk]  [prof]} 01:44, 27 September 2011 (UTC) reply
12. Jclemens ( talk) 04:15, 27 September 2011 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

2) All Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view, with all relevant points of view represented in reasonable proportion to their importance and relevance to the subject-matter of the article. Undue weight should not be given to aspects which are peripheral to the topic. Relying on synthesized claims, or other "original research", is also contrary to this principle.

Support:

1. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 22:48, 23 September 2011 (UTC) reply
2. PhilKnight ( talk) 23:36, 23 September 2011 (UTC) reply
3. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 03:04, 24 September 2011 (UTC) reply
4. SirFozzie ( talk) 09:28, 24 September 2011 (UTC) reply
5. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^{( talk)} 16:55, 24 September 2011 (UTC) reply
6. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 03:52, 25 September 2011 (UTC) reply
7.   Roger Davies ^talk 06:54, 25 September 2011 (UTC) reply
8. Mailer Diablo 18:20, 25 September 2011 (UTC) reply
9. Risker ( talk) 23:51, 25 September 2011 (UTC) reply
10. Kirill  ^{[talk]  [prof]} 01:44, 27 September 2011 (UTC) reply
11. Jclemens ( talk) 04:15, 27 September 2011 (UTC) reply
12. The Cavalry ( Message me) 13:39, 30 September 2011 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

3) Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users. Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, harassment, disruptive point-making, and gaming the system, is prohibited. Making unsupported accusations of such misconduct by other editors, particularly where this is done repeatedly or in a bad-faith attempt to gain an advantage in a content dispute, is also unacceptable.

Support:

1. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 22:48, 23 September 2011 (UTC) reply
2. PhilKnight ( talk) 23:36, 23 September 2011 (UTC) reply
3. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 03:04, 24 September 2011 (UTC) reply
4. SirFozzie ( talk) 09:28, 24 September 2011 (UTC) reply
5. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^{( talk)} 16:55, 24 September 2011 (UTC) reply
6. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 03:52, 25 September 2011 (UTC) reply
7.   Roger Davies ^talk 06:54, 25 September 2011 (UTC) reply
8. Mailer Diablo 18:20, 25 September 2011 (UTC) reply
9. Kirill  ^{[talk]  [prof]} 01:44, 27 September 2011 (UTC) reply
10. Jclemens ( talk) 04:15, 27 September 2011 (UTC) reply
11. The Cavalry ( Message me) 13:39, 30 September 2011 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Support the thrust of this; however, would prefer the word "unacceptable" to "prohibited". Risker ( talk) 23:51, 25 September 2011 (UTC) reply

I see them as more-or-less synonyms here, but would have no objection to that change. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 00:10, 26 September 2011 (UTC) reply

I think "unacceptable" is more in line with practise, as lack of decorum does not result in instant bans as "prohibited" would imply. We work with shades of grey. However "Unseemly conduct, such as x y and z, is unacceptable" doesn't read well. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 01:04, 26 September 2011 (UTC) reply

4) Wikipedia relies on a consensus model. When there is a good-faith dispute, editors are expected to participate in the consensus-building process, in lieu of soapboxing, edit warring, or other inappropriate behavior. Abuse of the consensus model and process, such as misrepresenting consensus or poisoning the well, is disruptive. Specific forums, such as those for deletion and page move discussions, have been created to seek and where possible attain consensus on specific types of content disagreements.

Support:

1. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 22:48, 23 September 2011 (UTC) reply
2. PhilKnight ( talk) 23:38, 23 September 2011 (UTC) reply
3. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 03:04, 24 September 2011 (UTC) reply
4. This could be used in so many of these such disputes. SirFozzie ( talk) 09:28, 24 September 2011 (UTC) reply
5. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^{( talk)} 16:55, 24 September 2011 (UTC) reply
6. Minor copyedit (for parallel construction; my 11th-grade English teacher would be proud). Newyorkbrad ( talk) 03:52, 25 September 2011 (UTC) reply
7.   Roger Davies ^talk 06:54, 25 September 2011 (UTC) reply
8. Mailer Diablo 18:20, 25 September 2011 (UTC) reply
9. Risker ( talk) 23:51, 25 September 2011 (UTC) reply
10. Kirill  ^{[talk]  [prof]} 01:44, 27 September 2011 (UTC) reply
11. Jclemens ( talk) 04:15, 27 September 2011 (UTC) reply
12. The Cavalry ( Message me) 13:39, 30 September 2011 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

5) The purpose of a talk page is to provide a location for editors to discuss changes to the associated article or project page. Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views on a subject. Editors should aspire to use talk pages effectively and must not misuse them through practices such as excessive repetition, monopolization, irrelevancy, advocacy, misrepresentation of others' comments, or personal attacks.

Support:

1. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 22:48, 23 September 2011 (UTC) reply
2. PhilKnight ( talk) 23:38, 23 September 2011 (UTC) reply
3. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 03:04, 24 September 2011 (UTC) reply
4. Or in short, the talk page is not for establishing TRUTH, it's for improving the article. SirFozzie ( talk) 09:28, 24 September 2011 (UTC) reply
5. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^{( talk)} 16:55, 24 September 2011 (UTC) reply
6. (Perhaps "improvements" instead of "changes" in the first sentence, or "issues relating to", but that is a nit.) Newyorkbrad ( talk) 03:52, 25 September 2011 (UTC) reply
7.   Roger Davies ^talk 06:54, 25 September 2011 (UTC) reply
8. Mailer Diablo 18:20, 25 September 2011 (UTC) reply
9. Risker ( talk) 23:51, 25 September 2011 (UTC) reply
10. Kirill  ^{[talk]  [prof]} 01:44, 27 September 2011 (UTC) reply
11. Jclemens ( talk) 04:15, 27 September 2011 (UTC) reply
12. The Cavalry ( Message me) 13:39, 30 September 2011 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

6) It is not the role of the Arbitration Committee to settle good-faith content disputes among editors.

Support:

1. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 22:48, 23 September 2011 (UTC) reply
2. PhilKnight ( talk) 23:39, 23 September 2011 (UTC) reply
3. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 03:04, 24 September 2011 (UTC) reply
4. Key words being good-faith. SirFozzie ( talk) 09:28, 24 September 2011 (UTC) reply
5. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^{( talk)} 16:55, 24 September 2011 (UTC) reply
6. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 03:52, 25 September 2011 (UTC) reply
7.   Roger Davies ^talk 06:54, 25 September 2011 (UTC) reply
8. Mailer Diablo 18:20, 25 September 2011 (UTC) reply
9. Risker ( talk) 23:51, 25 September 2011 (UTC) reply
10. Kirill  ^{[talk]  [prof]} 01:44, 27 September 2011 (UTC) reply
11. Jclemens ( talk) 04:15, 27 September 2011 (UTC) reply
12. Emphasis on the words 'good faith'. The Cavalry ( Message me) 13:39, 30 September 2011 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

7) Contributors who engage in tendentious or disruptive editing – such as sustained and aggressive point-of-view pushing – may be subjected to editing restrictions on the articles in question or be banned from the topic or the site.

Support:

1. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 22:48, 23 September 2011 (UTC) reply
2. PhilKnight ( talk) 23:39, 23 September 2011 (UTC) reply
3. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 03:04, 24 September 2011 (UTC) reply
4. SirFozzie ( talk) 09:28, 24 September 2011 (UTC) reply
5. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^{( talk)} 16:55, 24 September 2011 (UTC) reply
6. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 03:52, 25 September 2011 (UTC) reply
7. Minor copy-edit ("such as by engaging in sustained aggressive point-of-view editing" > "– such as sustained and aggressive point-of-view pushing –"). Duplicatory. Revert or tweak liberally!   Roger Davies ^talk 06:54, 25 September 2011 (UTC) reply
8. Mailer Diablo 18:20, 25 September 2011 (UTC) reply
9. Risker ( talk) 23:51, 25 September 2011 (UTC) reply
10. Kirill  ^{[talk]  [prof]} 01:44, 27 September 2011 (UTC) reply
11. Jclemens ( talk) 04:15, 27 September 2011 (UTC) reply
12. The Cavalry ( Message me) 13:39, 30 September 2011 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

8) Edit-warring is harmful. When disagreements arise, users are expected to discuss their differences rationally rather than reverting ad infinitum. Revert rules should not be construed as an entitlement or inalienable right to revert, nor do they endorse reverts as an editing technique.

Support:

1. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 22:48, 23 September 2011 (UTC) reply
2. PhilKnight ( talk) 23:40, 23 September 2011 (UTC) reply
3. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 03:04, 24 September 2011 (UTC) reply
4. There's a reason our discussion model is BRD (Be BOLD, and if you get REVERTED, DISCUSS until you can come to a consensus) and not BREA (Bold, revert, endless arguments) SirFozzie ( talk) 09:28, 24 September 2011 (UTC) reply
5. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^{( talk)} 16:55, 24 September 2011 (UTC) reply
6. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 03:52, 25 September 2011 (UTC) reply
7. Tweak header ("Edit wars considered harmful" > "Edits wars are harmful").   Roger Davies ^talk 06:54, 25 September 2011 (UTC) reply
8. Mailer Diablo 18:20, 25 September 2011 (UTC) reply
9. Risker ( talk) 23:51, 25 September 2011 (UTC) reply
10. Kirill  ^{[talk]  [prof]} 01:44, 27 September 2011 (UTC) reply
11. Jclemens ( talk) 04:15, 27 September 2011 (UTC) reply
12. I'm not even sure that the words 'ad infinitum' are needed here. The Cavalry ( Message me) 13:39, 30 September 2011 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

9) Article titles are based on the name by which reliable English-language sources refer to the article's subject. In determining which of several alternative names is most frequently used, it is useful to observe the usage of major international organizations, major English-language media outlets, quality encyclopedias, geographic name servers, major scientific bodies and scientific journals. When there is no single obvious term that is obviously the most frequently used for the topic, as used by a significant majority of reliable English-language sources, editors should reach a consensus as to which title is best by considering recognisability, naturalness, precision, conciseness and consistency.

Support:

1. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 22:48, 23 September 2011 (UTC) reply
2. PhilKnight ( talk) 23:40, 23 September 2011 (UTC) reply
3. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 03:04, 24 September 2011 (UTC) reply
4. again, this is not a new or uncommon issue in nationalist areas such as this. SirFozzie ( talk) 09:28, 24 September 2011 (UTC) reply
5. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^{( talk)} 16:55, 24 September 2011 (UTC) reply
6. Of course, which of the list of relevant factors is most relevant will depend on the nature of the article whose title is in question. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 03:52, 25 September 2011 (UTC) reply
7.   Roger Davies ^talk 06:54, 25 September 2011 (UTC) reply
8. Mailer Diablo 18:20, 25 September 2011 (UTC) reply
9. Risker ( talk) 23:53, 25 September 2011 (UTC) reply
10. Kirill  ^{[talk]  [prof]} 01:44, 27 September 2011 (UTC) reply
11. Jclemens ( talk) 04:15, 27 September 2011 (UTC) reply
12. Per NYB. The Cavalry ( Message me) 13:39, 30 September 2011 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

1) The dispute centers around the name or names to be used on English Wikipedia when referring to the Diaoyu/Senkaku/Pinnacle Islands, in order that Wikipedia content is neutral on this real-world territorial dispute. Specifically, the dispute focuses on what name to use as the title of the Senkaku Islands article and related articles.

Support:

1. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 22:50, 23 September 2011 (UTC) reply
2. PhilKnight ( talk) 23:41, 23 September 2011 (UTC) reply
3. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 03:06, 24 September 2011 (UTC) reply
4. SirFozzie ( talk) 09:32, 24 September 2011 (UTC) reply
5. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^{( talk)} 17:15, 24 September 2011 (UTC) reply
6. Yes,   Roger Davies ^talk 14:00, 25 September 2011 (UTC) reply
7. Mailer Diablo 18:20, 25 September 2011 (UTC) reply
8. Copyedited last sentence; any arbitrator may revert if desired. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 23:37, 25 September 2011 (UTC) reply
9. Risker ( talk) 00:09, 26 September 2011 (UTC) reply
10. Kirill  ^{[talk]  [prof]} 01:44, 27 September 2011 (UTC) reply
11. Jclemens ( talk) 04:17, 27 September 2011 (UTC) reply
12. The Cavalry ( Message me) 14:23, 30 September 2011 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

2) The topic of the correct, neutral designation has been disputed on Wikipedia since 2003; however, interest in the dispute was renewed and increased after the 2010 Senkaku boat collision incident in September 2010.

Support:

1. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 22:50, 23 September 2011 (UTC) reply
2. PhilKnight ( talk) 23:42, 23 September 2011 (UTC) reply
3. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 03:06, 24 September 2011 (UTC) reply
4. SirFozzie ( talk) 09:32, 24 September 2011 (UTC) reply
5. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^{( talk)} 17:15, 24 September 2011 (UTC) reply
6. Yes,   Roger Davies ^talk 14:00, 25 September 2011 (UTC) reply
7. Mailer Diablo 18:20, 25 September 2011 (UTC) reply
8. Minor copyedits; any arbitrator may revert if undesired. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 23:39, 25 September 2011 (UTC) reply
9. Risker ( talk) 00:09, 26 September 2011 (UTC) reply
10. Kirill  ^{[talk]  [prof]} 01:44, 27 September 2011 (UTC) reply
11. Jclemens ( talk) 04:17, 27 September 2011 (UTC) reply
12. The Cavalry ( Message me) 14:23, 30 September 2011 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

3) Since September 2010, the pages currently titled Senkaku Islands and Senkaku Islands dispute have frequently been protected in response to edit-warring, such as the edit war in February over of the inclusion of tag {{ NPOV-title}} on these articles.( [1]; [2]; [3]) The dispute was taken to the Mediation Committee ( Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Senkaku Islands), but the mediation did not achieve a satisfactory resolution of the dispute.

Support:

1. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 22:50, 23 September 2011 (UTC) reply
2. PhilKnight ( talk) 23:42, 23 September 2011 (UTC) reply
3. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 03:06, 24 September 2011 (UTC) reply
4. We've been at this a while, and after a long run "up the chain" of DR, it finally it got to us. SirFozzie ( talk) 09:32, 24 September 2011 (UTC) reply
5. Up the long ladder... Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^{( talk)} 17:15, 24 September 2011 (UTC) reply
6.   Roger Davies ^talk 14:00, 25 September 2011 (UTC) reply
7. Mailer Diablo 18:20, 25 September 2011 (UTC) reply
8. Minor copyedits to last sentence; any arbitrator may revert if undesired. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 23:40, 25 September 2011 (UTC) reply
9. Risker ( talk) 00:09, 26 September 2011 (UTC) reply
10. Kirill  ^{[talk]  [prof]} 01:44, 27 September 2011 (UTC) reply
11. Jclemens ( talk) 04:17, 27 September 2011 (UTC) reply
12. The Cavalry ( Message me) 14:23, 30 September 2011 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

4) Tenmei ( talk · contribs) was topic-banned from a particular topic for six months as a remedy to the Tang Dynasty arbitration case of 2009, and thereafter, following a review, was permitted to edit Wikipedia only with the guidance of six publicly identified mentors.

Support:

1. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 22:50, 23 September 2011 (UTC) reply
2. PhilKnight ( talk) 23:46, 23 September 2011 (UTC) reply
3. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 03:06, 24 September 2011 (UTC) reply
4. I almost proposed a recidivism principle above, just because of the history here, that there is probably support for a harsher remedy. SirFozzie ( talk) 09:32, 24 September 2011 (UTC) reply
5. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^{( talk)} 17:15, 24 September 2011 (UTC) reply
6. Yep (with minor copy-edit: "6" > "six")   Roger Davies ^talk 14:00, 25 September 2011 (UTC) reply
7. Mailer Diablo 18:20, 25 September 2011 (UTC) reply
8. Minor copyedits mostly to adjust the chronology (there was an initial case decision in Tang Dynasty, and later a review that resulted in an amendment strengthening the remedies); any arbitrator may revert if undesired. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 23:43, 25 September 2011 (UTC) reply
9. Risker ( talk) 00:09, 26 September 2011 (UTC) reply
10. Kirill  ^{[talk]  [prof]} 01:44, 27 September 2011 (UTC) reply
11. Jclemens ( talk) 04:17, 27 September 2011 (UTC) reply
12. The Cavalry ( Message me) 14:23, 30 September 2011 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

5) Although Tenmei was counselled on this issue during the prior case, his manner and style of communications during disputes has not improved. Whether intentional or not, Tenmei's involvement in the current dispute has frustrated involved and uninvolved editors alike, amplifying and prolonging the dispute resolution process.( Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Tenmei (see views by HXL49 and Taemyr); Evidence section "Tenmei", provided by Qwyrxian; [4])

Support:

1. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 22:50, 23 September 2011 (UTC) reply
2. PhilKnight ( talk) 23:53, 23 September 2011 (UTC) reply
3. SirFozzie ( talk) 09:32, 24 September 2011 (UTC) reply
4. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^{( talk)} 17:15, 24 September 2011 (UTC) reply
5. Reluctantly. Tenmei has genuine difficulty communicating clearly and concisely in English. Although his abstract and often nebulous style confuses and frustrates people up, I am sure it is not intentional.   Roger Davies ^talk 14:00, 25 September 2011 (UTC) reply
6. Mailer Diablo 18:20, 25 September 2011 (UTC) reply
7. Per Roger Davies. I think that Tenmei is clearly a good-faith, well-meaning editor; but all too often, I read his long posts and I honestly don't know what he's talking about. For an editor who has become involved in a series of disputes, this is a serious problem. ¶ Minor copyedits, including insertion of the introductory clause ("Although...") at the beginning; any arbitrator may revert if undesired. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 23:46, 25 September 2011 (UTC) reply
8. Risker ( talk) 00:09, 26 September 2011 (UTC) reply
9. Kirill  ^{[talk]  [prof]} 01:44, 27 September 2011 (UTC) reply
10. Jclemens ( talk) 04:17, 27 September 2011 (UTC) reply
11. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 14:54, 29 September 2011 (UTC) reply
12. Per Roger, and more specifically, NYB. The Cavalry ( Message me) 14:23, 30 September 2011 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

6) Bobthefish2 ( talk · contribs) registered an account in September 2010, and the user states that he or she was "new and was condescending".( User:Bobthefish2/ArbComEvidence) Since October 2010, Bobthefish2 has focused heavily on the Senkaku Islands dispute. Bobthefish2 has a limited number of contributions to other topics on Wikipedia.

Support:

1. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 22:50, 23 September 2011 (UTC) reply
2. PhilKnight ( talk) 23:56, 23 September 2011 (UTC) reply
3. Very close to being a SPA. (Not that there's anything wrong specifically with a SPA, but one must take extra care in such cases to make sure their behavior doesn't cross the line. SirFozzie ( talk) 09:32, 24 September 2011 (UTC) reply
4. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^{( talk)} 17:15, 24 September 2011 (UTC) reply
5.   Roger Davies ^talk 14:00, 25 September 2011 (UTC) reply
6. Mailer Diablo 18:20, 25 September 2011 (UTC) reply
7. Full support, but I would prefer not to mention the "new and condescending" comment. Unless the circumstances are extreme, it might be counterproductive to discourage comments reflecting introspection and self-critical analysis by users who have become involved in a dispute, for fear they will be used against them later. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 23:49, 25 September 2011 (UTC) reply

   How does this differ from Cirt admitting their contributions occasionally had problems? I think it is important to acknowledge when parties do provide us with self-critical analysis. I don't mind if we are less specific in our final decision. I would like to replace this with "the user has indicated their behaviour has been sub-optimal and has vowed to improve", but I dont think the second half is written anywhere. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 01:11, 26 September 2011 (UTC) reply

   I see significant distinctions between the two situations; however, since no one else seems to be in agreement with my concern, I will drop the issue unless others are interested in discussing it further. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 16:11, 27 September 2011 (UTC) reply

8. Risker ( talk) 00:09, 26 September 2011 (UTC) reply
9. Kirill  ^{[talk]  [prof]} 01:44, 27 September 2011 (UTC) reply
10. Jclemens ( talk) 04:17, 27 September 2011 (UTC) reply
11. Although diversifying recently. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 14:59, 29 September 2011 (UTC) reply
12. The Cavalry ( Message me) 14:23, 30 September 2011 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

7) Bobthefish2 has engaged in a pattern of disruptive use of talk pages.( [5]; [6] [7]; [8]; [9]; Evidence section "Bobthefish2", provided by Qwyrxian)

Support:

1. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 22:50, 23 September 2011 (UTC) reply
2. PhilKnight ( talk) 23:59, 23 September 2011 (UTC) reply
3. SirFozzie ( talk) 09:32, 24 September 2011 (UTC) reply
4. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^{( talk)} 17:15, 24 September 2011 (UTC) reply
5. Yup,   Roger Davies ^talk 14:00, 25 September 2011 (UTC) reply
6. Mailer Diablo 18:20, 25 September 2011 (UTC) reply
7. The ethnic references to other editors contained in these edits are also troublesome. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 23:50, 25 September 2011 (UTC) reply
8. Risker ( talk) 00:09, 26 September 2011 (UTC) reply
9. Kirill  ^{[talk]  [prof]} 01:44, 27 September 2011 (UTC) reply
10. Jclemens ( talk) 04:17, 27 September 2011 (UTC) reply
11. Edits not conducive in cooling situation, rather the opposite. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 15:01, 29 September 2011 (UTC) reply
12. The Cavalry ( Message me) 14:23, 30 September 2011 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

8) STSC ( talk · contribs) became an active user in October 2010, and was focused heavily on the Senkaku Islands dispute until June 2011. STSC is now contributing to a broader range of topics; however, a large proportion of these topics are similar territorial disputes, including Wikipedia article-naming disputes.( Talk:Swallow Reef#Layang Layang vs Swallow_Reef; Talk:Spratly Islands#Categorization as District of Khanh Hoa Province)

Support:

1. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 22:50, 23 September 2011 (UTC) reply
2. PhilKnight ( talk) 00:01, 24 September 2011 (UTC) reply
3. SirFozzie ( talk) 09:32, 24 September 2011 (UTC) reply
4. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^{( talk)} 17:15, 24 September 2011 (UTC) reply
5.   Roger Davies ^talk 14:00, 25 September 2011 (UTC) reply
6. Mailer Diablo 18:20, 25 September 2011 (UTC) reply
7. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 23:51, 25 September 2011 (UTC) reply
8. Risker ( talk) 00:09, 26 September 2011 (UTC) reply
9. Kirill  ^{[talk]  [prof]} 01:44, 27 September 2011 (UTC) reply
10. Jclemens ( talk) 04:17, 27 September 2011 (UTC) reply
11. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 15:02, 29 September 2011 (UTC) reply
12. The Cavalry ( Message me) 14:23, 30 September 2011 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

9) STSC has made inappropriate sexualised comments about parties involved in this dispute.( [10]; [11]; User_talk:STSC#Please_immediately_change_your_remarks; [12]; [13])

Support:

1. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 22:50, 23 September 2011 (UTC) reply
2. PhilKnight ( talk) 00:01, 24 September 2011 (UTC) reply
3. There was a line crossed here, several times over. SirFozzie ( talk) 09:32, 24 September 2011 (UTC) reply
4. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^{( talk)} 17:15, 24 September 2011 (UTC) reply
5.   Roger Davies ^talk 14:00, 25 September 2011 (UTC) reply
6. Mailer Diablo 18:20, 25 September 2011 (UTC) reply
7. The first comment might have been intended as a flippant or thoughtless, ill-judged attempt at humor; but it quickly became apparent that this sort of joking was unwelcome, and instead of apologizing and/or stopping, STSC continued the improper comments. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 23:54, 25 September 2011 (UTC) reply
8. Agree with John Vandenberg's comment below. Risker ( talk) 00:09, 26 September 2011 (UTC) reply
9. Kirill  ^{[talk]  [prof]} 01:44, 27 September 2011 (UTC) reply
10. Jclemens ( talk) 04:17, 27 September 2011 (UTC) reply
11. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 15:04, 29 September 2011 (UTC) reply
12. The Cavalry ( Message me) 14:23, 30 September 2011 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Arbcom usually ignores a lot of bad behaviour during cases, and doesn't use this as evidence. However, in this instance, the behaviour is punching ' below the belt'. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 22:46, 23 September 2011 (UTC) reply

Apt metaphor, John.   Roger Davies ^talk 14:00, 25 September 2011 (UTC) reply

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.

1A) Tenmei is topic banned from the subject of Senkaku Islands, widely construed, for one year. The topic ban includes talk pages, wikipedia space and userspace and shall run consecutively to any site ban.

Support:

1. Second preference. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 22:57, 23 September 2011 (UTC) reply
2. Weak second preference. SirFozzie ( talk) 09:43, 24 September 2011 (UTC) reply
3. Second preference. PhilKnight ( talk) 18:36, 25 September 2011 (UTC) reply
4. Second choice. Kirill  ^{[talk]  [prof]} 01:44, 27 September 2011 (UTC) reply
5. 2nd choice. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^{( talk)} 02:02, 27 September 2011 (UTC) reply
6. Equal preference. See comment on 1B. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 16:03, 27 September 2011 (UTC) reply
7. Second choice. Risker ( talk) 00:41, 29 September 2011 (UTC) reply
8. Second choice. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 14:50, 30 September 2011 (UTC) reply
9. Second choice. - Mailer Diablo 15:43, 30 September 2011 (UTC) reply
10. Second choice,   Roger Davies ^talk 02:04, 1 October 2011 (UTC) reply
11. Second choice. The Cavalry ( Message me) 20:49, 4 October 2011 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

I'll put this comment here, but it applies to all of the remedies. Could there be some rationale as to why each of the "options" for remedies for Tenmei in particular have been put forward? Why are some preferring one to another? Risker ( talk) 01:48, 26 September 2011 (UTC) reply

I think this particular dispute wont benefit from Tenmei participating, ever. I believe Tenmei is a good-faith contributor, however they have wandered into another dispute despite the prior arbitration case, and their involvement was again unhelpful. People with poor English skills should limit their involvement in disputes to the level that their language skills are suited to. Most people understand this, however Tenmei doesnt appear to understand the problems he causes with his communication style. As a result, I think a one year ban is needed to underscore that their continued engagement in disputes wont be tolerated. Some members of the community would say that Tenmei has already exceeded the communities patience. Too much volunteer time is wasted when Tenmei participates in dispute resolution. Should Tenmei end up in mediation or arbitration again, I think an indef ban is needed. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 02:08, 26 September 2011 (UTC) reply

Thanks, John. Risker ( talk) 00:41, 29 September 2011 (UTC) reply

1B) Tenmei is indefinitely topic banned from the subject of Senkaku Islands, widely construed. The topic ban includes talk pages, wikipedia space and userspace.

Support:

1. First choice. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 22:57, 23 September 2011 (UTC) reply
2. Was going to throw in a limit of appeals, but considering some of the findings below, probably not necessary. SirFozzie ( talk) 09:43, 24 September 2011 (UTC) reply
3. PhilKnight ( talk) 18:39, 25 September 2011 (UTC) reply
4. First choice. Kirill  ^{[talk]  [prof]} 01:44, 27 September 2011 (UTC) reply
5. First. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^{( talk)} 02:02, 27 September 2011 (UTC) reply
6. Jclemens ( talk) 04:18, 27 September 2011 (UTC) reply
7. Equal preference. Although not embodied in the decision, I think it has become established that topic-banned users can request relaxation or termination of their topics bans after a reasonable time has elapsed, which in this instance would be a minimum of several months, and preferably one year in more. In addressing any such request, we typically take into account whether the user has been making productive contributions on other topics and has stopped the types of behavior that led to the topic-ban. (But of course all of this may be moot in this instance if we vote a site-ban as well.) Newyorkbrad ( talk) 16:03, 27 September 2011 (UTC) reply
8. First choice. Per Newyorkbrad. Risker ( talk) 00:41, 29 September 2011 (UTC) reply
9. Per NYB. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 14:50, 30 September 2011 (UTC) reply
10. First choice. - Mailer Diablo 15:43, 30 September 2011 (UTC) reply
11. First choice,   Roger Davies ^talk 02:04, 1 October 2011 (UTC) reply
12. First choice. The Cavalry ( Message me) 20:49, 4 October 2011 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

2) Tenmei is warned to promptly disengage from any topic on English Wikipedia which is being disputed by other editors.

Support:

1. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 22:57, 23 September 2011 (UTC) reply
2. Weak support. I think the other remedies make the same point. SirFozzie ( talk) 09:43, 24 September 2011 (UTC) reply
3. Weak support; I think it can be concurrent. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^{( talk)} 02:02, 27 September 2011 (UTC) reply
4. Second choice, prefer 2A. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 16:05, 27 September 2011 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

1. Prefer 2A. PhilKnight ( talk) 18:34, 25 September 2011 (UTC) reply
2. Unnecessary, given the other remedies. Kirill  ^{[talk]  [prof]} 01:44, 27 September 2011 (UTC) reply
3. Agree with Kirill. Risker ( talk) 00:43, 29 September 2011 (UTC) reply
4. Prefer 2A. - Mailer Diablo 15:56, 30 September 2011 (UTC) reply
5. Per Kirill,   Roger Davies ^talk 02:04, 1 October 2011 (UTC) reply
6. Too vague, and in any case superceded by other remedies. The Cavalry ( Message me) 20:49, 4 October 2011 (UTC) reply

Abstain:

Comments:

2A) Tenmei is advised that his unusual style of communication has not been conducive to resolving this dispute. Accordingly, Tenmei is urged to develop a different style of communication, which is more similar to that used by experienced Wikipedia editors. Until this happens, Tenmei is advised not to engage in topics which are the subject of a dispute.

Support:

1. PhilKnight ( talk) 18:34, 25 September 2011 (UTC) reply
2. SirFozzie ( talk) 00:19, 26 September 2011 (UTC) reply
3. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^{( talk)} 02:02, 27 September 2011 (UTC) reply
4. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 16:05, 27 September 2011 (UTC) reply
5. Support in addition to 2. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 01:03, 30 September 2011 (UTC) reply
6. Mailer Diablo 15:56, 30 September 2011 (UTC) reply
7. Eh, why not? Jclemens ( talk) 01:04, 3 October 2011 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

1. As in 2. Kirill  ^{[talk]  [prof]} 01:44, 27 September 2011 (UTC) reply
2. Agree with Kirill. Risker ( talk) 00:43, 29 September 2011 (UTC) reply
3. Per Kirill,   Roger Davies ^talk 02:04, 1 October 2011 (UTC) reply
4. Per Kirill. The Cavalry ( Message me) 20:49, 4 October 2011 (UTC) reply

Abstain:

Comments:

Regarding the opposes, I agree this isn't completely essential, however I think it is useful to further emphasize our concerns regarding his style of communication. PhilKnight ( talk) 17:28, 29 September 2011 (UTC) reply

I see your point Phil, but my opinion is that our concerns are already clear. The Cavalry ( Message me) 20:49, 4 October 2011 (UTC) reply

3A) Tenmei is banned for one year.

Support:

1. First preference. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 22:57, 23 September 2011 (UTC) reply
2. Given the underlying problem is difficulty with communication, I think a site ban, as opposed to just a topic ban, is required. PhilKnight ( talk) 00:06, 24 September 2011 (UTC) reply
3. Considering the history of the user, yes. SirFozzie ( talk) 09:43, 24 September 2011 (UTC) reply
4. Kirill  ^{[talk]  [prof]} 01:44, 27 September 2011 (UTC) reply
5. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^{( talk)} 02:02, 27 September 2011 (UTC) reply
6. Jclemens ( talk) 04:18, 27 September 2011 (UTC) reply
7. Although I do not normally suggest that editors move to another project (because I don't think shipping our problems elsewhere is in the spirit of intra-project cooperation), this may be one case where it may be mutually advantageous. I suggest that Tenmei consider trying to work within the limited vocabulary of Simple English Wikipedia, a project specifically designed for those speaking English as a second language, because I believe he has something to offer but needs some greater linguistic constraints in order to be most effective. Risker ( talk) 00:42, 29 September 2011 (UTC) reply

   Involvement in his native-language Wikipedia (if he is not already editing there—I don't know) might also be worthwhile, especially if he sticks primarily to the mainspace there. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 01:01, 29 September 2011 (UTC) reply

8. Sigh. - Mailer Diablo 15:56, 30 September 2011 (UTC) reply
9. After the very considerable efforts that went into mentorship, and its subsequent failure, there isn't really an alternative,   Roger Davies ^talk 02:04, 1 October 2011 (UTC) reply
10. Reluctantly, per Roger. The Cavalry ( Message me) 20:49, 4 October 2011 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

1. I acknowledge all the reasons that John has proposed, and our colleagues are supporting, this remedy. He can indeed be exasperating. Nonetheless, in light of Tenmei's useful mainspace contributions on non-controversial matters (per John below and corroborated by the links Tenmei has posted on my talkpage), I would favor a less severe sanction. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 03:26, 28 September 2011 (UTC) reply

Abstain:

Comments:

Have we scrutinized Tenmei's mainspace edits on non-controversial topics (yes, there are some)? I understand the rationale warranting this proposal, but I'm hesitant to vote for a full site-ban if a less severe sanction could preserve Tenmei's useful mainspace work while eliminating or mitigating the problematic aspects. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 16:09, 27 September 2011 (UTC) reply

I have, and I have found his contributions on non-controversial topics to be good. My reason for a one year ban is that the message was not headed the first time, despite having mentors assigned. The mentor process last time consumed an awful lot of arbitrator time in the way of motions/amendments/etc. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 16:48, 27 September 2011 (UTC) reply

3B) Tenmei is banned indefinitely.

Support:

1. Second preference. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 22:57, 23 September 2011 (UTC) reply
2. equal preference. SirFozzie ( talk) 09:43, 24 September 2011 (UTC) reply
3. Second preference. PhilKnight ( talk) 18:27, 25 September 2011 (UTC) reply
4. Second preference. I don't see an indefinite ban as likely to be permanent; however, having a ban of finite duration may motivate Tenmei to give focus to the changes in practice necessary to succeed on this project. Risker ( talk) 00:46, 29 September 2011 (UTC) reply
5. Second choice. Jclemens ( talk) 01:05, 3 October 2011 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

1. I'm not convinced that Tenmei's conduct is sufficiently disruptive as to warrant bypassing the customary one-year ban as an initial sanction. Kirill  ^{[talk]  [prof]} 01:44, 27 September 2011 (UTC) reply
2. As with Kirill, I don't think that such a sanction is reasonable. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^{( talk)} 02:02, 27 September 2011 (UTC) reply
3. Per my comment on 3A, and even assuming I am convinced that full ban (as opposed to a topic-ban) is warranted, per Kirill. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 16:09, 27 September 2011 (UTC) reply
4. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 15:09, 29 September 2011 (UTC) reply
5. 3A is more than sufficient. - Mailer Diablo 15:56, 30 September 2011 (UTC) reply
6. Per Kirill,   Roger Davies ^talk 02:04, 1 October 2011 (UTC) reply
7. Per Kirill. The Cavalry ( Message me) 20:49, 4 October 2011 (UTC) reply

Abstain:

Comments:

4) Bobthefish2 is advised to step away from this dispute and the parties involved in this dispute.

Support:

1. first pref. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 22:57, 23 September 2011 (UTC) reply
2. Second choice, prefer 4A. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 16:11, 27 September 2011 (UTC) reply
3. Second choice. Prefer 4A. The Cavalry ( Message me) 20:49, 4 October 2011 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

1. Prefer 4A SirFozzie ( talk) 09:43, 24 September 2011 (UTC) reply
2. Prefer 4A. PhilKnight ( talk) 18:41, 25 September 2011 (UTC) reply
3. Prefer 4A. Kirill  ^{[talk]  [prof]} 01:44, 27 September 2011 (UTC) reply
4. Prefer 4A. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^{( talk)} 14:52, 29 September 2011 (UTC) reply
5. Prefer 4A. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 15:09, 29 September 2011 (UTC) reply
6. Prefer 4A. - Mailer Diablo 15:56, 30 September 2011 (UTC) reply
7.   Roger Davies ^talk 02:04, 1 October 2011 (UTC) reply
8. Jclemens ( talk) 01:06, 3 October 2011 (UTC) reply

Abstain:

Comments:

I think I'd prefer a 1 year topic ban. PhilKnight ( talk) 00:11, 24 September 2011 (UTC) reply

4A) Bobthefish2 is topic banned from the subject of Senkaku Islands, widely construed, for one year. The topic ban includes talk pages, wikipedia space and user space.

Support:

1. preferred. SirFozzie ( talk) 09:43, 24 September 2011 (UTC) reply
2. second pref. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 09:53, 24 September 2011 (UTC) reply
3. PhilKnight ( talk) 09:55, 24 September 2011 (UTC) reply
4. Kirill  ^{[talk]  [prof]} 01:44, 27 September 2011 (UTC) reply
5. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^{( talk)} 02:02, 27 September 2011 (UTC) reply
6. Jclemens ( talk) 04:18, 27 September 2011 (UTC) reply
7. First choice. With regret, but necessary. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 16:12, 27 September 2011 (UTC) reply
8. Only choice. Risker ( talk) 00:47, 29 September 2011 (UTC) reply
9. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 15:09, 29 September 2011 (UTC) reply
10. Mailer Diablo 15:56, 30 September 2011 (UTC) reply
11.   Roger Davies ^talk 02:04, 1 October 2011 (UTC) reply
12. The Cavalry ( Message me) 20:49, 4 October 2011 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

5) STSC is warned to avoid any sexualisation of discussions, especially during disputes.

Support:

1. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 22:57, 23 September 2011 (UTC) reply
2. Prefer to make it clear that if he continues to do so, he will face sanctions, but I guess this is good enough. SirFozzie ( talk) 09:43, 24 September 2011 (UTC) reply
3. On reflection, I'm ok with just a warning. PhilKnight ( talk) 15:19, 24 September 2011 (UTC) reply
4. Kirill  ^{[talk]  [prof]} 01:44, 27 September 2011 (UTC) reply
5. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^{( talk)} 02:02, 27 September 2011 (UTC) reply
6. I, too, would support a topic ban if one was offered. Jclemens ( talk) 04:19, 27 September 2011 (UTC) reply
7. I'm not sure that "sexualization" is the best word for what we are discussing here, but I haven't been able to come up with better language as yet. As for the suggestion of a topic-ban, I am not sure whether I'd support it if offered (I'd have to review the evidence closely once again), but I am sure that STSC will wind up quickly being topic-banned on AE under the discretionary sanctions in any event if he doesn't clean up his act. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 16:16, 27 September 2011 (UTC) reply
8. The comments, bluntly, are inappropriate; in a business setting, they could lead to charges of sexual harassment. Risker ( talk) 00:55, 29 September 2011 (UTC) reply
9. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 15:09, 29 September 2011 (UTC) reply
10. Mailer Diablo 15:56, 30 September 2011 (UTC) reply
11.   Roger Davies ^talk 02:04, 1 October 2011 (UTC) reply
12. The Cavalry ( Message me) 20:49, 4 October 2011 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Again, would prefer a topic ban. PhilKnight ( talk) 00:12, 24 September 2011 (UTC) reply

6) The parties are reminded that attempts to use Wikipedia as a battleground may result in the summary imposition of additional sanctions, up to and including a ban from the project.

Support:

1. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 22:57, 23 September 2011 (UTC) reply
2. PhilKnight ( talk) 00:13, 24 September 2011 (UTC) reply
3. SirFozzie ( talk) 09:43, 24 September 2011 (UTC) reply
4. Although this should already be obvious to everyone involved. Kirill  ^{[talk]  [prof]} 01:44, 27 September 2011 (UTC) reply
5. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^{( talk)} 02:02, 27 September 2011 (UTC) reply
6. Jclemens ( talk) 04:20, 27 September 2011 (UTC) reply
7. My usual reservation about the "battleground" metaphor, as it may not be clear to those lucky editors who don't live on the arbitration pages; but the point still comes through. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 16:17, 27 September 2011 (UTC) reply
8. Risker ( talk) 00:56, 29 September 2011 (UTC) reply
9. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 15:09, 29 September 2011 (UTC) reply
10. Mailer Diablo 15:56, 30 September 2011 (UTC) reply
11.   Roger Davies ^talk 02:04, 1 October 2011 (UTC) reply
12. The Cavalry ( Message me) 20:49, 4 October 2011 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

7) The topic covered by the article currently located at Senkaku Islands, interpreted broadly, is placed under standard discretionary sanctions. Any uninvolved administrator may levy restrictions as an arbitration enforcement action on users editing in this topic area, after an initial warning.

Support:

1. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 22:57, 23 September 2011 (UTC) reply
2. PhilKnight ( talk) 00:14, 24 September 2011 (UTC) reply
3. Standard in disputed nationalist/national areas that are under heavy dispute. SirFozzie ( talk) 09:43, 24 September 2011 (UTC) reply
4. Kirill  ^{[talk]  [prof]} 01:44, 27 September 2011 (UTC) reply
5. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^{( talk)} 02:02, 27 September 2011 (UTC) reply
6. Jclemens ( talk) 04:20, 27 September 2011 (UTC) reply
7. Appropriate notices should be posted on Talk:Senkaku Islands, Talk:Senkaku Islands dispute, and closely related pages. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 16:18, 27 September 2011 (UTC) reply
8. Risker ( talk) 00:56, 29 September 2011 (UTC) reply
9. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 15:09, 29 September 2011 (UTC) reply
10. Mailer Diablo 15:56, 30 September 2011 (UTC) reply
11.   Roger Davies ^talk 02:04, 1 October 2011 (UTC) reply
12. The Cavalry ( Message me) 20:49, 4 October 2011 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

8) An uninvolved administrator may, after a warning given a month prior, place any set of pages relating to a territorial dispute between sovereign nations under standard discretionary sanctions for six months if the editing community is unable to reach consensus on the proper names to be used to refer to the disputed region.

While a territorial dispute is subject to discretionary sanctions, any uninvolved administrator may levy restrictions as an arbitration enforcement action on users editing in these topical areas, after an initial warning.

Support:

1. There are many ongoing/simmering territorial disputes in this region and the world, and each of them is likely to become a Wikipedia dispute. They tend to flair up quickly due to some external, so this allows administrators to advise contributors that they been to have civil productive discussions or their topic will be placed under discretionary sanctions. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 22:57, 23 September 2011 (UTC) reply
2. This is to prevent us having to play whack a mole, we've seen this a lot before with Ireland, Eastern Europe, now this. A large percentage of our disputes are due to these real world conflicts and this gives admins (and conscientious editors) another tool in their arsenal to keep the peace. SirFozzie ( talk) 09:43, 24 September 2011 (UTC) reply
3. Although this allows any uninvolved admin to place a set of pages under discretionary sanctions, I think it would almost certainly be worthwhile to discuss the situation with other uninvolved admins prior to placing the sanctions. PhilKnight ( talk) 22:06, 25 September 2011 (UTC) reply
4. Per PhilKnight, I'd propose more than simply one uninvolved admin--say, an AN, ANI, or AE discussion determining that the area is indeed problematic. Still, these geographic naming disputes are ultimately different verses of the same song. Jclemens ( talk) 04:22, 27 September 2011 (UTC) reply

   I dont think we should include ANI. AN or AE would be appropriate. Notifications to WikiProject International relations might help, and WikiProject International law looks relevant as well. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 09:58, 27 September 2011 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

1. This is merely an invitation to further conflict unless we intend to define "sovereign nations" ourselves; a significant portion of territorial disputes hinge on questions of disputed sovereignty. In any case, I'm uncomfortable with devolving the imposition of discretionary sanctions to administrators until we've completed our planned standardization of the existing sanctions. Kirill  ^{[talk]  [prof]} 01:44, 27 September 2011 (UTC) reply

   This remedy should only cover territorial disputes between indisputable sovereign nations. We could say UN recognised nations, if that would help. There is no dispute that China and Japan and Taiwan and Australia are all sovereign nations. All The majority of the examples on {{ Territorial disputes in East, South, and Southeast Asia}} are between UN recognised nations. There are very few of these disputes that doesn't involve two or more UN recognised territories. It wouldnt cover disputes involving micronations and unrecognized or largely unrecognized states (such as the dispute over East Jerusalem by Israel and Palestinian National Authority), as those have a different set of drivers. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 04:51, 27 September 2011 (UTC) reply

   There are disputes even in the cases you list; Taiwan is not recognized by the UN (nor by most other nations), for example. Kirill  ^{[talk]  [prof]} 10:59, 27 September 2011 (UTC) reply

   (Gah, I have stricken Taiwan as that was not correct. Thanks.) Like the problem we're describing, we could agree that we are both right. PRC and KMT/ROC hold the position that is only one China, and China is a UN member. Who governs China, and who represents China at UN, is a different matter. Regarding territorial disputes involving ROC/Taiwan, there are three types. 1) disputes between ROC and PRC, 2) disputes in name only that involve ROC and a sovereign entity where the dispute only exists because ROC doesn't acknowledge agreements and treaties that have been made by PRC, and 3) disputes involving 'China' (i.e. ROC and PRC) and another sovereign entity (i.e. not Taiwan). 1) is a peculating issue that will probably create an almighty disturbance on the wiki if it ever does flare up; 2) is a set of dormant issues that are unlikely to flare up; and 3) are the conflicts which are likely to flare up and this remedy aims to help with. The first two would not be covered by "territorial dispute between UN recognised sovereign nations", however the last one would come under "territorial dispute between UN recognised sovereign nations". John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 14:48, 27 September 2011 (UTC) reply

2. Seems to be a bad remedy unless everything in this remedy is explicitly spelled out. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^{( talk)} 02:02, 27 September 2011 (UTC) reply
3. Too broad; there are dozens of territorial disputes between sovereign nations all over the world. I don't think an editor of articles involving the Venezuela/Guyana border or Mayotte or the Ethiopia-Eritrea booundary dispute would understand why he or she is being warned or sanctions under the rubric of the Senkaku Islands case. I would, however, consider a narrower wording relating to disputed territorial claims, particularly claims relating to island groups, among the countries of East Asia; I think that after having dealt with the Liancourt Rocks case and now this one, we can be proactive enough to anticipate future disputes involving the Paracels and the Spratleys and so on. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 16:26, 27 September 2011 (UTC) reply
4. Too broad, and not comfortable to devolve this much authority to individual administrators. Risker ( talk) 00:58, 29 September 2011 (UTC) reply
5. Too broad, possibly wide implications. - Mailer Diablo 15:56, 30 September 2011 (UTC) reply
6.   Roger Davies ^talk 02:04, 1 October 2011 (UTC) reply
7. Per Risker. The Cavalry ( Message me) 20:49, 4 October 2011 (UTC) reply

Abstain:

Comments:

8A) An uninvolved administrator may, after a warning given a month prior, place any set of pages relating to a territorial dispute of islands in East Asia, broadly interpreted, under standard discretionary sanctions for six months if the editing community is unable to reach consensus on the proper names to be used to refer to the disputed islands.

While a territorial dispute is subject to discretionary sanctions due to this remedy, any uninvolved administrator may levy restrictions as an arbitration enforcement action on users editing in these topical areas, after an initial warning.

Support:

1. By popular demand. Second choice. I prefer the "all your disputed territories are belong to us" version above. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 18:05, 27 September 2011 (UTC) reply
2. Support. Copyedit made: added "in the West Pacific" in the header, to conform to the text. Proposed copyedit (in text and header): "in the west Pacific" --> "in East Asia". I'm not sure that all the disputed island groups fall in the West Pacific. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 22:25, 27 September 2011 (UTC) reply

   I dont mind "in the west Pacific" --> "in East Asia". -- John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 03:52, 28 September 2011 (UTC) reply

3. First preference. Looking at Borders of the oceans#Pacific Ocean - if we use the CIA factbook definition of the Pacific that would be ok, however perhaps it would be clearer to use Brad's proposed copyedit. PhilKnight ( talk) 23:38, 27 September 2011 (UTC) reply

   The "Factbook" definition would I suppose have the virtue of clarity, but my concern is that some of the disputed island groups—such as the Liancourt Rocks, the canonical example of such a place—seem to fall outside the area described. Plus I cringe at what some people might say if we cited a U.S. CIA document, even an innocuous one, as authority in an arbitration decision. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 01:10, 28 September 2011 (UTC) reply

   I think you'll find the Liancourt Rocks are within the CIA factbook definition of the Pacific, but outside of the International Hydrographic Organization definition. That said, I think your proposed copyedit would be an improvement. PhilKnight ( talk) 12:40, 28 September 2011 (UTC) reply

   I've changed "in the West Pacific" -> "in East Asia". Thanks, John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 00:58, 29 September 2011 (UTC) reply

4. Second choice. Jclemens ( talk) 02:57, 29 September 2011 (UTC) reply
5. First choice. I understand the concern about admin authority over such broad discretions, but I don't think an auth group is any better. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^{( talk)} 14:53, 29 September 2011 (UTC) reply
6. Second Choice. SirFozzie ( talk) 01:11, 30 September 2011 (UTC) reply
7. Sounds better. - Mailer Diablo 15:56, 30 September 2011 (UTC) reply
8. Sure,   Roger Davies ^talk 02:04, 1 October 2011 (UTC) reply
9. Improvement over the first one, although I do very much share Risker's concerns about devolving this amount of power to individual administrators. That said, I'm willing to accept this as a... trial run, of sorts. An authorised group would add unneeded complexity, and may not be any better. The Cavalry ( Message me) 20:49, 4 October 2011 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

1. I understand the purpose of this proposal (and its alternative); however, I am uncomfortable in devolving this level of authority to individual administrators. I'd consider some sort of "authorized" group to make these sorts of determinations, which fall between the need for a full arbitration case and all the time and effort that entails (for all involved) and a simple exercise of specific discretionary sanctions. I am not certain, however, that this is the case in which to develop such an internal body. Risker ( talk) 01:03, 29 September 2011 (UTC) reply
2. As in 8 (and as per Risker), we are not (yet) ready to devolve the imposition of discretionary sanctions. Kirill  ^{[talk]  [prof]} 02:42, 29 September 2011 (UTC) reply

   I understand the point that Risker and Kirill are making. However, based on ample precedent, we would probably be prepared to adopt a remedy holding that all these disputed-island articles in East Asia are placed under discretionary sanctions, even though not all the island groups are involved in this case (just as, for example, we adopted such sanctions in Eastern Europe even though the specific case before us did not involve all of Eastern Europe). If we can do that, then it seems to me to be less rather than more of a stretch for us to vote that these disputes may be placed under discretionary sanctions in the future. The alternative, if the current proposal doesn't pass, is probably for us to take no further action right now, and then implement discretionary sanctions for these disputes throughout the region, on our own, if we get another case much like Liancourt Rocks and this one. I agree that that's a defensible outcome, so this is a judgment call. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 02:48, 29 September 2011 (UTC) reply

Abstain:

Comments:

1) Should any user subject to a restriction or ban imposed in this case violate that restriction or ban, that user may be blocked, initially for up to one month, and then with blocks increasing in duration to a maximum of one year, with the ban or topic ban clock restarting at the end of the block. Appeals of blocks may be made to the imposing administrator, and thereafter to Arbitration Enforcement, or to the Arbitration Committee.

Support:

1. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 22:58, 23 September 2011 (UTC) reply
2. PhilKnight ( talk) 00:15, 24 September 2011 (UTC) reply
3. SirFozzie ( talk) 20:29, 25 September 2011 (UTC) reply
4. Kirill  ^{[talk]  [prof]} 01:44, 27 September 2011 (UTC) reply
5. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^{( talk)} 02:02, 27 September 2011 (UTC) reply
6. Jclemens ( talk) 04:22, 27 September 2011 (UTC) reply
7. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 16:27, 27 September 2011 (UTC) reply
8. It should be noted that, particularly for users to whom discretionary sanctions are applied, administrators may also consider other restrictions or sanctions in addition to, or instead of, blocks. Risker ( talk) 01:04, 29 September 2011 (UTC) reply

   Seconded. For future reference, in cases where we are imposing discretionary sanctions as well as other remedies, the boilerplate enforcement section should probably be copied from this one. But it's not worth changing now, and all of that is probably inherent in here anyway. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 13:21, 30 September 2011 (UTC) reply

9. The Cavalry ( Message me) 20:50, 4 October 2011 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

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.

Proposals which pass

Passing principles: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9

Passing findings: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9

Passing remedies: 1B, 2A, 3A, 4A, 5, 6, 7, 8A

Passing enforcement provisions: 1

Proposals which do not pass

Failing principles: None

Failing findings: None

Failing remedies: 1A (second preference to 1B), 2, 3B, 4, 8

Failing enforcement provisions: None

Last updated: -- Alexandr Dmitri ( talk) 12:22, 3 October 2011 (UTC) reply

Important: Please ask the case clerk to author the implementation notes before initiating a motion to close, so that the final decision is clear.

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. The Clerks will close the case either immediately, or 24 hours after the fourth net support vote has been cast, depending on whether the arbitrators have voted unanimously on the entirety of the case's proposed decision or not.

Support

1. I recognize that at the moment, remedies 2A and 8A, which I've supported, aren't passing, however neither is completely essential, and in particular, I agree with Brad's comments regarding 8A. PhilKnight ( talk) 17:32, 29 September 2011 (UTC) reply
2. Pretty much ready to close. The remaining voting can be completed in the next day or two before the closure is enacted. I suggest that (as always) arbitrators who voted early in the case should review the most recent proposals and comments (here and on the talkpage) one last time. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 13:18, 30 September 2011 (UTC) reply
3. Reviewed and agree with the closure recommendations. Jclemens ( talk) 21:46, 30 September 2011 (UTC) reply
4. I'm done,   Roger Davies ^talk 02:05, 1 October 2011 (UTC) reply
5. I am done. My apologies for being so late; my laptop died a horrible death over the weekend. The Cavalry ( Message me) 20:51, 4 October 2011 (UTC) reply

Oppose

1. Admins and non-admins alike are asking for us to seriously look at devolving responsibility at Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Senkaku_Islands/Proposed_decision#Not_ready_to_devolve_discretionary_sanctions_to_admins. As a result, I believe that we should not close until all arbitrators have voted on 8 and 8A. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 01:07, 30 September 2011 (UTC) Please disregard/cancel this oppose once that is achieved as I will be on limited connectivity over the coming weekend. reply

The Calvary hasnt finished voting yet. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 20:01, 2 October 2011 (UTC) reply

(oppose vote struck as The Calvary has voted; thanks The Calvary) John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 10:43, 5 October 2011 (UTC) reply

Comments

• With the net four to close attained, this case will be closed in 24 hours from now (20:51, 5 October 2001 - UTC) -- Alexandr Dmitri ( talk) 21:18, 4 October 2011 (UTC) reply