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 others at /Workshop, Arbitrators may 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. 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. Only Arbitrators or Clerks should edit this page; non-Arbitrators may comment on the talk page.

For this case, there are 13 active Arbitrators (excluding 2 inactive), so 7 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 Clerks' noticeboard. Similarly, arbitrators may request clerk assistance via the same method.

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:

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:

1) The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of cameraderie and mutual respect among editors.

Support:

1. Comments about the source and background for the various proposed principles, if desired, are on the workshop. I have carefully considered the comments offered on the workshop but concluded that changes to the draft principles I proposed there are not warranted. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 19:27, 29 May 2009 (UTC) reply
2. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 20:36, 29 May 2009 (UTC) reply
3. Wizardman 21:22, 29 May 2009 (UTC) reply
4. Kirill  ^{[talk]  [pf]} 00:40, 30 May 2009 (UTC) reply
5. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:18, 30 May 2009 (UTC) reply
6.   Roger Davies ^talk 08:54, 30 May 2009 (UTC) reply
7. FloNight ♥♥♥ 20:22, 30 May 2009 (UTC) reply
8. -- Vassyana ( talk) 01:18, 4 June 2009 (UTC) reply
9. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 23:03, 6 June 2009 (UTC) reply
10. FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 00:50, 10 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

2) Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users; to approach even difficult situations in a dignified fashion and with a constructive and collaborative outlook. Unseemly conduct from all sides of a dispute, such as personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, and disruptive point-making, is prohibited.

Support:

1. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 19:27, 29 May 2009 (UTC) reply
2. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 20:36, 29 May 2009 (UTC) reply
3. Wizardman 21:22, 29 May 2009 (UTC) reply
4. Kirill  ^{[talk]  [pf]} 00:40, 30 May 2009 (UTC) reply
5. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:18, 30 May 2009 (UTC) reply
6.   Roger Davies ^talk 08:54, 30 May 2009 (UTC) reply
7. FloNight ♥♥♥ 20:22, 30 May 2009 (UTC) reply
8. -- Vassyana ( talk) 01:18, 4 June 2009 (UTC) reply
9. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 23:03, 6 June 2009 (UTC) reply
10. FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 00:50, 10 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

3) Because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, the reliability and accuracy of our content is extremely important. Wikipedia:Verifiability, a policy, requires that article content that is challenged or is likely to be challenged must be attributed to a published reliable source supporting the information presented.

Support:

1. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 19:27, 29 May 2009 (UTC) reply
2. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 20:36, 29 May 2009 (UTC) reply
3. Wizardman 21:22, 29 May 2009 (UTC) reply
4. Kirill  ^{[talk]  [pf]} 00:40, 30 May 2009 (UTC) reply
5. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:18, 30 May 2009 (UTC) reply
6.   Roger Davies ^talk 08:54, 30 May 2009 (UTC) reply
7. FloNight ♥♥♥ 20:22, 30 May 2009 (UTC) reply
8. -- Vassyana ( talk) 01:18, 4 June 2009 (UTC) reply
9. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 23:03, 6 June 2009 (UTC) reply
10. FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 00:50, 10 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

4) Wherever possible, English-language sources are preferable to sources in other languages so that English-speaking readers can readily verify the content of the article and, if desired, can consult the source for more information. However, sources in other languages are acceptable where an English equivalent is not available. Where editors translate a direct quote, they should quote the relevant portion of the original text in a footnote or in the article. There is no requirement that a translation of the source be required in other circumstances, although courtesy and good practice suggest that if a genuine concern arises concerning the content or reliability of the foreign-language source, providing a translation or paraphrase of the relevant portion of its content will help address the concern.

Support:

1. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 19:27, 29 May 2009 (UTC) reply
2. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 20:36, 29 May 2009 (UTC) reply
3. Wizardman 21:22, 29 May 2009 (UTC) reply
4. Kirill  ^{[talk]  [pf]} 00:40, 30 May 2009 (UTC) reply
5. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:18, 30 May 2009 (UTC) reply
6.   Roger Davies ^talk 08:54, 30 May 2009 (UTC) reply
7. FloNight ♥♥♥ 20:22, 30 May 2009 (UTC) reply
8. -- Vassyana ( talk) 01:18, 4 June 2009 (UTC) reply
9. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 23:03, 6 June 2009 (UTC) reply
10. FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 00:50, 10 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

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

Support:

1. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 19:27, 29 May 2009 (UTC) reply
2. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 20:36, 29 May 2009 (UTC) reply
3. Wizardman 21:22, 29 May 2009 (UTC) reply
4. Kirill  ^{[talk]  [pf]} 00:40, 30 May 2009 (UTC) reply
5. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:18, 30 May 2009 (UTC) reply
6.   Roger Davies ^talk 08:54, 30 May 2009 (UTC) reply
7. FloNight ♥♥♥ 20:22, 30 May 2009 (UTC) reply
8. -- Vassyana ( talk) 01:18, 4 June 2009 (UTC) reply
9. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 23:03, 6 June 2009 (UTC) reply
10. FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 00:50, 10 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

6) Editors should use their best efforts to communicate with one another, particular when disputes arise. When an editor's input is consistently unclear or difficult to follow, the merits of his or her position may not be fully understood by those reading the communication. An editor's failure to communicate concerns with sufficient clarity, conciseness and succinctness, or with insufficient attention to detail, or failure to focus on the topic being discussed, can impede both collaborative editing and dispute resolution. Editors should recognise when this is the case and take steps to address the problems, either on their own or, where necessary, by seeking assistance.

Support:

1. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 19:27, 29 May 2009 (UTC) reply
2. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 20:36, 29 May 2009 (UTC) reply
3. Wizardman 21:22, 29 May 2009 (UTC) reply
4. Kirill  ^{[talk]  [pf]} 00:40, 30 May 2009 (UTC) reply
5. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:18, 30 May 2009 (UTC) reply
6.   Roger Davies ^talk 08:54, 30 May 2009 (UTC) reply
7. FloNight ♥♥♥ 20:22, 30 May 2009 (UTC) reply
8. -- Vassyana ( talk) 01:18, 4 June 2009 (UTC) reply
9. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 23:03, 6 June 2009 (UTC) reply
10. FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 00:50, 10 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

7) Editors who consistently find themselves in disputes with each other whenever they interact on Wikipedia, and who are unable to resolve their differences, should seek to minimize the extent of any unnecessary interactions between them. In extreme cases, they may be directed to do so.

Support:

1. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 19:27, 29 May 2009 (UTC) reply
2. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 20:36, 29 May 2009 (UTC) reply
3. Wizardman 21:22, 29 May 2009 (UTC) reply
4. Kirill  ^{[talk]  [pf]} 00:40, 30 May 2009 (UTC) reply
5. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:18, 30 May 2009 (UTC) reply
6.   Roger Davies ^talk 08:54, 30 May 2009 (UTC) reply
7. FloNight ♥♥♥ 20:22, 30 May 2009 (UTC) reply
8. -- Vassyana ( talk) 01:18, 4 June 2009 (UTC) reply
9. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 23:03, 6 June 2009 (UTC) reply
10. FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 00:50, 10 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

8) The pages associated with arbitration cases are primarily intended to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at a fair, well-informed, and expeditious resolution of each case. Participation by editors who present good-faith statements, evidence, and workshop proposals is appreciated. While allowance is made for the fact that parties and other interested editors may have strong feelings about the subject-matters of their dispute, appropriate decorum should be maintained on these pages. Incivility, personal attacks, and strident rhetoric should be avoided in arbitration as in all other areas of Wikipedia.

Support:

1. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 19:27, 29 May 2009 (UTC) reply
2. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 20:36, 29 May 2009 (UTC) reply
3. Wizardman 21:22, 29 May 2009 (UTC) reply
4. Kirill  ^{[talk]  [pf]} 00:40, 30 May 2009 (UTC) reply
5. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:18, 30 May 2009 (UTC) reply
6.   Roger Davies ^talk 08:54, 30 May 2009 (UTC) reply
7. FloNight ♥♥♥ 20:22, 30 May 2009 (UTC) reply
8. -- Vassyana ( talk) 01:18, 4 June 2009 (UTC) reply
9. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 23:03, 6 June 2009 (UTC) reply
10. FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 00:50, 10 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

9) Disengaging from a topic area and walking away due to a dispute can sometimes be the right decision. Unresolved content issues can be handled by other editors and this does not require the original parties to remain engaged with the issues. Conduct issues arising from the dispute may still need to be examined, in general terms related to other conduct, as well as specific conduct in the content dispute.

Support:

1. Proposed to support new Fof and remedies. Alternative suggestions and tweaks are welcome. Need to balance between walking away and not addressing specific concerns when conduct issues are being discussed. FloNight ♥♥♥ 13:40, 3 June 2009 (UTC) reply
2. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 14:36, 3 June 2009 (UTC) reply
3.   Roger Davies ^talk 21:04, 3 June 2009 (UTC) reply
4. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:17, 3 June 2009 (UTC) reply
5. -- Vassyana ( talk) 01:18, 4 June 2009 (UTC) reply
6. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 15:12, 4 June 2009 (UTC) reply
7. Wizardman 03:18, 6 June 2009 (UTC) reply
8. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 23:03, 6 June 2009 (UTC) reply
9. Kirill  ^{[talk]  [pf]} 02:49, 9 June 2009 (UTC) reply
10. FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 00:50, 10 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

10) Editors are strongly encouraged - and often expected - to set aside past interpersonal disputes or find ways to move beyond them, and to choose their present Wikipedia conduct in a way which exemplifies this. Users who fail to do so may themselves give rise to disruption.

Support:

1. Proposed to support new Fof and remedies. Alternative suggestions and tweaks are welcome. FloNight ♥♥♥ 13:40, 3 June 2009 (UTC) reply
2. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 14:36, 3 June 2009 (UTC) reply
3.   Roger Davies ^talk 21:04, 3 June 2009 (UTC) reply
4. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:17, 3 June 2009 (UTC) reply
5. -- Vassyana ( talk) 01:18, 4 June 2009 (UTC) reply
6. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 15:13, 4 June 2009 (UTC) reply
7. Wizardman 03:18, 6 June 2009 (UTC) reply
8. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 23:03, 6 June 2009 (UTC) reply
9. Kirill  ^{[talk]  [pf]} 02:49, 9 June 2009 (UTC) reply
10. FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 00:50, 10 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

11) {text of proposed principle}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

1) This case originated with a dispute primarily between Tenmei ( talk · contribs) and Teeninvestor ( talk · contribs) concerning the validity and reliability of sources on Inner Asia during the Tang Dynasty. Both Tenmei and Teeninvestor are experienced editors who have made substantial content contributions to Wikipedia. The evidence in the case has expanded to include other disputes in which Tenmei has been involved.

Support:

1. Revised from the workshop per comments there. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 19:54, 29 May 2009 (UTC) reply
2. second choice - prefer proposal below. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 20:36, 29 May 2009 (UTC) reply
3. Kirill  ^{[talk]  [pf]} 00:40, 30 May 2009 (UTC) reply
4. Second choice.   Roger Davies ^talk 08:54, 30 May 2009 (UTC) reply
5. Wizardman 19:19, 30 May 2009 (UTC) reply
6. FloNight ♥♥♥ 20:28, 30 May 2009 (UTC) reply
7. -- Vassyana ( talk) 01:19, 4 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

1. 1.1 is better. — Rlevse • Talk • 04:16, 6 June 2009 (UTC) reply
2. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 23:36, 6 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Abstain:

1.1) This case originated with a dispute primarily between Tenmei ( talk · contribs) and Teeninvestor ( talk · contribs) concerning the validity and reliability of sources on Inner Asia during the Tang Dynasty. Both Tenmei and Teeninvestor are experienced editors who have made substantial content contributions to Wikipedia. The dispute in the case has expanded to include other users that contributed evidence and comments during the case.

Support:

1. Proposed to better explain the current case. Previous editing disputes have returned during the case and I think that they need to be addressed or the situation will not be resolved. (Alternative and tweaks are welcome.) FloNight ♥♥♥ 13:49, 3 June 2009 (UTC) reply
2. first choice. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 14:37, 3 June 2009 (UTC) reply
3. First choice.   Roger Davies ^talk 21:06, 3 June 2009 (UTC) reply
4. First choice. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:19, 3 June 2009 (UTC) reply
5. -- Vassyana ( talk) 01:19, 4 June 2009 (UTC) reply
6. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 15:14, 4 June 2009 (UTC) reply
7. Wizardman 03:17, 6 June 2009 (UTC) reply
8. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 23:36, 6 June 2009 (UTC) reply
9. Kirill  ^{[talk]  [pf]} 02:49, 9 June 2009 (UTC) reply
10. FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 01:10, 10 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

2) Tenmei disputed the reliability of certain sources used by Teeninvestor on Inner Asia during the Tang Dynasty. Although some of the concerns raised by Tenmei may or may not be valid—a content issue we do not address—Tenmei's manner and style of raising them has made it difficult to understand the precise nature of his concerns. For example, several editors understood Tenmei to be objecting to the use of a source primarily because it is available only in Chinese and a translation was not provided, but on the workshop in this case, Tenmei has stated that this was not the substance of his objection. Additionally, Tenmei also once proposed to merge Inner Asia during the Tang Dynasty into the unrelated mainspace article Salting the earth, perhaps in a faulty attempt to assert that Inner Asia during the Tang Dynasty should be deleted and salted.

Support:

1. Revised per comments on the workshop. I welcome any alternatives. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 19:54, 29 May 2009 (UTC) reply
2. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 20:54, 29 May 2009 (UTC) reply
3. Kirill  ^{[talk]  [pf]} 00:40, 30 May 2009 (UTC) reply
4. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:18, 30 May 2009 (UTC) reply
5.   Roger Davies ^talk 08:54, 30 May 2009 (UTC) reply
6. Wizardman 19:19, 30 May 2009 (UTC) reply
7. FloNight ♥♥♥ 20:28, 30 May 2009 (UTC) reply
8. -- Vassyana ( talk) 01:19, 4 June 2009 (UTC) reply
9. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 23:36, 6 June 2009 (UTC) reply
10. FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 01:10, 10 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

3) In the course of dispute resolution regarding Inner Asia during the Tang Dynasty, Tenmei has engaged in instances of incivility and personal attacks, particularly toward Teeninvestor. More generally, many of Tenmei's talkpage posts and submissions during this arbitration case have been very difficult for other editors to understand, to the point that experienced participants in dispute resolution have had difficulty in following them, despite what we accept as Tenmei's good-faith best efforts to assist us in resolving the case.

Support:

1. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 19:54, 29 May 2009 (UTC) reply
2. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 20:53, 29 May 2009 (UTC) reply
3. Kirill  ^{[talk]  [pf]} 00:40, 30 May 2009 (UTC) reply
4. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:18, 30 May 2009 (UTC) reply
5. While noting that the animus between Tenmei and TeenInvestor appears mutual,   Roger Davies ^talk 08:54, 30 May 2009 (UTC) reply
6. Wizardman 19:19, 30 May 2009 (UTC) reply
7. Per Roger, there is mutual discord between Tenmei and Teeninvestor. FloNight ♥♥♥ 20:28, 30 May 2009 (UTC) reply
8. -- Vassyana ( talk) 01:19, 4 June 2009 (UTC) reply
9. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 23:36, 6 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

1. Diffs needed. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 01:10, 10 June 2009 (UTC) reply

4) Since prior to the start of the case, the involved parties have raised allegations of impropriety pertaining to each other in multiple forums all across Wikipedia. [1] While participation in the case is welcome in the form of providing evidence and commenting on the ruling, excessive and repetitive remarks both on the case pages and in other venues was unproductive for dispute resolution. [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18]. [19], [20], [21] [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30] [31], [32]. (Also see all case pages).

Support:

1. Significant bad blood between some of the parties in the case as noted by the diffs. People need to consider the role that they are playing in continuing the dispute by their comments made in various venues. -- FloNight ♥♥♥ 14:15, 3 June 2009 (UTC) reply
2. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 14:38, 3 June 2009 (UTC) reply
3.   Roger Davies ^talk 21:06, 3 June 2009 (UTC) reply
4. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:19, 3 June 2009 (UTC) reply
5. -- Vassyana ( talk) 01:19, 4 June 2009 (UTC) reply
6. After I posted my draft of the proposed decision, I received a series of comments from Tenmei, who thought the decision was unfair to him, and from Teeninvestor and Caspian blue, who thought it did not go far enough in criticizing or sanctioning Tenmei. I asked that other arbitrators take a fresh look at the situation, and FloNight's proposals are the result. The bottom line is that while I adhere to my conclusion as to the initial cause of the problem, at this point it is time for all of these editors to disengage from interacting with one another. (I copyedited the section title.) Newyorkbrad ( talk) 15:17, 4 June 2009 (UTC) reply
7. Wizardman 03:17, 6 June 2009 (UTC) reply
8. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 23:36, 6 June 2009 (UTC) reply
9. Kirill  ^{[talk]  [pf]} 02:50, 9 June 2009 (UTC) reply
10. FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 01:10, 10 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

5) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

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.

1) Tenmei is restricted as follows:

(A) Tenmei is topic-banned from Inner Asia during the Tang Dynasty for a period of six months. He is permitted to comment on the talkpage, so long as he does so in a civil fashion.

(B) Tenmei is instructed not to interact with or comment with regard to Teeninvestor on any page of Wikipedia (except in the course of legitimate dispute resolution initiated by others, if necessary, and in that case subject to remedy 2 below).

Support:

1. I have deleted one paragraph from the proposal on the workshop based on Tenmei's comments there, but added additional remedies below. Reciprocally, although I do not believe a formal remedy is required (other arbitrators may disagree), I strongly urge that Teeninvestor work to minimize any unnecessary interactions with Tenmei. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 20:06, 29 May 2009 (UTC) reply
2. Second choice. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 20:54, 29 May 2009 (UTC) reply
3. Kirill  ^{[talk]  [pf]} 00:40, 30 May 2009 (UTC) reply
4. Second choice. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:18, 30 May 2009 (UTC) reply
5. And endorsing NewYorkBrad's remarks about TeenInvestor who, I hope, takes notice.   Roger Davies ^talk 08:54, 30 May 2009 (UTC) reply
6. Wizardman 19:30, 30 May 2009 (UTC) reply
7. This will only be successful if Teeninvestor works to minimize any unnecessary interactions with Tenmei. To avoid a future motion making this a formal remedy, Teeninvestor needs to voluntarily avoid interactions with Tenmei. FloNight ♥♥♥ 20:40, 30 May 2009 (UTC) reply
8. Per NYB and FloNight. -- Vassyana ( talk) 01:21, 4 June 2009 (UTC) reply
9. Second choice. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 00:08, 7 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

1.1) Tenmei is restricted as follows:

(A) Tenmei is topic-banned from Inner Asia during the Tang Dynasty for a period of six months. He is permitted to comment on the talkpage, so long as he does so in a civil fashion.

(B) Tenmei is instructed not to interact with or comment with regard to Teeninvestor or Caspian blue on any page of Wikipedia (except in the course of legitimate dispute resolution initiated by others, if necessary, and in that case subject to remedy 2 below).

Support:

1. Added no interaction with user:Caspian blue. First choice. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 00:18, 7 June 2009 (UTC) reply
2. First choice, adding Caspian blue is needed. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:13, 7 June 2009 (UTC) reply
3. FloNight ♥♥♥ 12:33, 7 June 2009 (UTC) reply
4. Probably a good addition. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 14:51, 8 June 2009 (UTC) reply
5.   Roger Davies ^talk 21:52, 8 June 2009 (UTC) reply
6. Kirill  ^{[talk]  [pf]} 02:50, 9 June 2009 (UTC) reply
7. First choice. -- Vassyana ( talk) 15:12, 9 June 2009 (UTC) reply
8. First choice. Wizardman 18:20, 9 June 2009 (UTC) reply
9. FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 01:33, 10 June 2009 (UTC) reply
10. First choice. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 03:19, 10 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

2) Should Tenmei become involved in any further disputes with other editors, whether concerning the content of articles (beyond ordinary day-to-day editing issues) or more formal dispute resolution procedures, he shall seek the assistance of a volunteer mentor or adviser to work with him in maximizing the value of his presentation by assisting him with formulating it in a clear and civil fashion.

Support:

1. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 20:06, 29 May 2009 (UTC) reply
2. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 20:54, 29 May 2009 (UTC) reply
3. Kirill  ^{[talk]  [pf]} 00:40, 30 May 2009 (UTC) reply
4. Second choice. Roger Davies ^talk 08:54, 30 May 2009 (UTC) reply
5. Wizardman 19:30, 30 May 2009 (UTC) reply
6. FloNight ♥♥♥ 20:40, 30 May 2009 (UTC) reply
7. -- Vassyana ( talk) 01:21, 4 June 2009 (UTC) reply
8. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 00:08, 7 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

2.1) Tenmei ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) shall be assigned one or more volunteer mentors, who will be asked to assist him in understanding and following policy and community practice to a sufficient level that additional sanctions will not be necessary.

Support:

1. I think that Tenmei will benefit from consulting with a volunteer mentor. Note the different heading and new wording somewhat changes the focus of the proposal. FloNight ♥♥♥ 13:12, 3 June 2009 (UTC) reply
2. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 14:39, 3 June 2009 (UTC) reply
3. First choice.   Roger Davies ^talk 21:08, 3 June 2009 (UTC) reply
4. First choice. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:20, 3 June 2009 (UTC) reply
5. -- Vassyana ( talk) 01:21, 4 June 2009 (UTC) reply
6. First preference assuming a qualified mentor can be found. The mentor's tasks should include, but not be limited to, those described in the original proposal 2. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 15:18, 4 June 2009 (UTC) reply
7. Wizardman 03:18, 6 June 2009 (UTC) reply
8. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 00:08, 7 June 2009 (UTC) reply
9. Kirill  ^{[talk]  [pf]} 02:51, 9 June 2009 (UTC) reply
10. FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 01:33, 10 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

3) Editors who encounter difficulties in communicating with others on-wiki are advised to seek help from others in presenting their thoughts clearly, particularly when disputes arise or when dispute resolution is sought. This particularly applies to editors whose native language may not be English.

Support:

1. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 20:06, 29 May 2009 (UTC) reply
2. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 20:54, 29 May 2009 (UTC) reply
3. Kirill  ^{[talk]  [pf]} 00:40, 30 May 2009 (UTC) reply
4. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:18, 30 May 2009 (UTC) reply
5.   Roger Davies ^talk 08:54, 30 May 2009 (UTC) reply
6. Wizardman 19:30, 30 May 2009 (UTC) reply
7. FloNight ♥♥♥ 20:40, 30 May 2009 (UTC) reply
8. -- Vassyana ( talk) 01:21, 4 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

1. This is a principle rather than an remedy. Which editors are being advised? John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 00:08, 7 June 2009 (UTC) reply
2. Per John. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 01:33, 10 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Abstain:

4) Editors not previously involved in Inner Asia during the Tang Dynasty and any other articles involved in the original content dispute are invited to give attention to any remaining issues concerning the article, including the reliability of sources used in it. Participation from editors fluent in the Chinese language may be especially helpful.

Support:

1. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 20:06, 29 May 2009 (UTC) reply
2. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 20:54, 29 May 2009 (UTC) reply
3. Kirill  ^{[talk]  [pf]} 00:40, 30 May 2009 (UTC) reply
4. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:18, 30 May 2009 (UTC) reply
5.   Roger Davies ^talk 08:54, 30 May 2009 (UTC) reply
6. Wizardman 19:30, 30 May 2009 (UTC) reply
7. FloNight ♥♥♥ 20:40, 30 May 2009 (UTC) reply
8. -- Vassyana ( talk) 01:21, 4 June 2009 (UTC) reply
9. FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 01:33, 10 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

1. I don't see any justification for this article deserving special attention. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 00:08, 7 June 2009 (UTC) reply

5) The Arbitration Committee retains jurisdiction over the subject-matter of this case, as it does in any case. Should the preceding remedies fail to improve the situation described in this decision, after a reasonable time, an application may be made to reopen the case and impose other remedies as may be necessary.

Support:

1. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 20:06, 29 May 2009 (UTC) reply
2. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 20:54, 29 May 2009 (UTC) reply
3. Kirill  ^{[talk]  [pf]} 00:40, 30 May 2009 (UTC) reply
4.   Roger Davies ^talk 08:54, 30 May 2009 (UTC) reply
5. Wizardman 19:30, 30 May 2009 (UTC) reply
6. Voting for this general remedy, although I would prefer one that specifically instructs all involved parties to read the case, and then addresses the specific issues that need to be evaluated in this situation. FloNight ♥♥♥ 20:40, 30 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

1. I don't think we need to mention this in every case. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:18, 30 May 2009 (UTC) reply

   I've commented on this issue on the proposed decision page in the Mattisse case. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 14:46, 1 June 2009 (UTC) reply

2. -- Vassyana ( talk) 01:21, 4 June 2009 (UTC) reply
3. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 00:08, 7 June 2009 (UTC) reply
4. 'as it does in any case' says it all. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 01:33, 10 June 2009 (UTC) reply

6) The parties are instructed to carefully review the principles and findings contained in this decision. Each of the parties is strongly urged to conform his or her future behavior to the principles set forth in this decision.

Support:

(Change to oppose.) -- FloNight ♥♥♥ 13:48, 9 June 2009 (UTC) If this passes, then we might want to renumber before the case closes. Second choice. I prefer the alternative with the warning. FloNight ♥♥♥ 14:19, 3 June 2009 (UTC) reply

1. Second choice.   Roger Davies ^talk 21:08, 3 June 2009 (UTC) reply
2. -- Vassyana ( talk) 01:21, 4 June 2009 (UTC) reply
3. First choice. See also my comments on finding 4. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 15:19, 4 June 2009 (UTC) reply
4. Wizardman 03:16, 6 June 2009 (UTC) reply
5. First choice. If there is problematic behaviour from the other parties, findings are required beyond the general "Allegations pertaining to other parties". As such, a general request for other parties to review the principles is all that is supported. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 00:08, 7 June 2009 (UTC) reply
6. Kirill  ^{[talk]  [pf]} 02:48, 9 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

1. Prefer 6.1. FloNight ♥♥♥ 13:48, 9 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Abstain:

1. prefer following Casliber ( talk · contribs) 14:40, 3 June 2009 (UTC) reply

6.1) The parties are instructed to carefully review the principles and findings contained in this decision. Each of the parties is strongly urged to conform his or her future behavior to the principles set forth in this decision. Each of the parties is warned for engaging in the problematic user conduct described above, and is instructed to avoid any further instances of such conduct.

Support:

1. Alternative with stronger wording. First choice. FloNight ♥♥♥ 14:20, 3 June 2009 (UTC) reply
2. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 14:40, 3 June 2009 (UTC) reply
3. First choice.   Roger Davies ^talk 21:08, 3 June 2009 (UTC) reply
4. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:21, 3 June 2009 (UTC) reply
5. First choice. -- Vassyana ( talk) 01:21, 4 June 2009 (UTC) reply
6. I prefer 6 by a slight margin. See also my comments on finding 4. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 15:20, 4 June 2009 (UTC) reply
7. Wizardman 03:16, 6 June 2009 (UTC) reply
8. Kirill  ^{[talk]  [pf]} 02:48, 9 June 2009 (UTC) reply
9. Ok. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 01:33, 10 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

1. There are no specific findings of problematic user conduct for the parties other than Tenmei. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 00:08, 7 June 2009 (UTC) reply

   The fof addresses all the involved parties, right? So, this is a general warning to the involved parties. These have been used quite a bit in the past instead of mentioning each person individually. This is the light way to handle the matter, and I think appropriate since the problem came evident during the case, and hopefully will resolve with this approach. FloNight ♥♥♥ 01:20, 7 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Abstain:

7) Editors who find it difficult to edit a particular article or topic are counseled that they may sometimes need or wish to step away temporarily from that article or subject area. Sometimes, editors in this position may best devote some of their knowledge, interest, and effort to creating or editing other articles that may relate to the same broad subject-matter as the dispute, but are less immediately contentious.

Support:

1. Need to state this directly to all involved parties. (Again might want to renumber if passes.) FloNight ♥♥♥ 13:30, 3 June 2009 (UTC) reply
2. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 14:41, 3 June 2009 (UTC) reply
3.   Roger Davies ^talk 21:08, 3 June 2009 (UTC) reply
4. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:22, 3 June 2009 (UTC) reply
5. -- Vassyana ( talk) 01:21, 4 June 2009 (UTC) reply
6. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 15:21, 4 June 2009 (UTC) reply
7. Wizardman 03:16, 6 June 2009 (UTC) reply
8. Kirill  ^{[talk]  [pf]} 02:47, 9 June 2009 (UTC) reply
9. Ok. FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 01:33, 10 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

1. This is a principle rather than a remedy. Which editors are being counseled? John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 00:08, 7 June 2009 (UTC) reply

   This came from another case as a remedy with slightly modified wording. All the involved parties need to take this counsel. :-) FloNight ♥♥♥

Abstain:

6) {text of proposed remedy}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

1) Should any editor subject to a restriction under this decision violate that restriction, he may be blocked for an appropriate length of time by any uninvolved administrator. All blocks shall be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tang Dynasty#Log of blocks and bans.

Support:

1. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 20:08, 29 May 2009 (UTC) reply
2. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 20:55, 29 May 2009 (UTC) reply
3. Kirill  ^{[talk]  [pf]} 00:40, 30 May 2009 (UTC) reply
4. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:18, 30 May 2009 (UTC) reply
5.   Roger Davies ^talk 08:54, 30 May 2009 (UTC) reply
6. Wizardman 19:30, 30 May 2009 (UTC) reply
7. FloNight ♥♥♥ 20:41, 30 May 2009 (UTC) reply
8. -- Vassyana ( talk) 01:21, 4 June 2009 (UTC) reply
9. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 00:09, 7 June 2009 (UTC) reply
10. FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 01:34, 10 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

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.

Passing

• Pri : 1 to 10
• FoF : 1.1, 2-4
• Rem : 1.1, 2.1 - 4, 5 (due to abstains), 6.1, 7
• Enf : 1

Not Passing (Insufficient majority in Italics)

• Pri : NIL
• FoF : 1 (due to 1.1)
• Rem : 1 (due to 1.1), 2 (due to 2.1), 6
• Enf : NIL

- Mailer Diablo 22:26, 2 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Updated. — Rlevse • Talk • 04:16, 6 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Added remedy 1.1, which is currently failing. Paul August ☎ 19:13, 8 June 2009 (UTC) reply

I've updated the above to reflect that, R1.1 is now passing and preferred over R1. Paul August ☎ 12:59, 10 June 2009 (UTC) reply

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.

1. Everything passes except R6, which is superseded by R6.1. Close. Wizardman 03:19, 6 June 2009 (UTC) reply
2. Close. Kirill  ^{[talk]  [pf]} 03:29, 6 June 2009 (UTC) reply
3. Note two more don't pass due to vote changes and "second choices", update notes. — Rlevse • Talk • 04:22, 6 June 2009 (UTC) reply
4. Close. But still we need to identify mentors for Tenmei. FloNight ♥♥♥ 09:51, 6 June 2009 (UTC) reply
5. Alternatives have sufficient votes and there do not seem to be outstanding issues to be addressed within the decision itself, thought some followup will be necessary for implementation. -- Vassyana ( talk) 10:25, 10 June 2009 (UTC) reply
6. Close. Surely mentors can happen as a postscript? Casliber ( talk · contribs) 10:56, 10 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Oppose

We need to find mentors, and I have put up an alternative remedy. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 02:04, 7 June 2009 (UTC) reply