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 10 active arbitrators of whom none are recused, so 6 votes are a majority.

Place those on /Workshop. Motions which are accepted for consideration and which require a vote will be placed here by the arbitrators for voting.
Motions have the same majority for passage as the final decision.

Template

1) {text of proposed motion}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

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.

Template

1) {text of proposed orders}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Proposed final decision Information

Wikipedia is not a battleground

1) Wikipedia is a reference work. Use of the site for ideological struggle accompanied by harassment of opponents is extremely disruptive.

Support:

1. Kirill Lokshin 18:14, 21 May 2007 (UTC) reply
2. Fred Bauder 13:20, 23 May 2007 (UTC) reply
3. James F. (talk) 13:18, 25 May 2007 (UTC) reply
4. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:04, 30 May 2007 (UTC) reply
5. FloNight 13:19, 5 June 2007 (UTC) reply
6. jpgordon ^∇∆∇∆ 05:16, 6 June 2007 (UTC) reply
7. SimonP 11:56, 6 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Consensus

2) Wikipedia works by building consensus through the use of polite discussion. The request for comment process is designed to assist consensus-building when normal talk page communication has not worked. Sustained edit-warring and move-warring is not an appropriate method of resolving disputes, and is wasteful of resources and destructive to morale.

Support:

1. Kirill Lokshin 18:14, 21 May 2007 (UTC) reply
2. Added move warring as well. Blnguyen ( bananabucket) 06:45, 23 May 2007 (UTC) reply
3. Fred Bauder 13:20, 23 May 2007 (UTC) reply
4. James F. (talk) 13:18, 25 May 2007 (UTC) reply
5. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:04, 30 May 2007 (UTC) reply
6. FloNight 13:19, 5 June 2007 (UTC) reply
7. jpgordon ^∇∆∇∆ 05:16, 6 June 2007 (UTC) reply
8. SimonP 11:56, 6 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Template

3) {text of proposed principle}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

TingMing

1) TingMing ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has engaged in edit-warring ( [1]) and attempts to turn Wikipedia into a battleground along national and ideological lines ( [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]).

Support:

1. Kirill Lokshin 18:14, 21 May 2007 (UTC) reply
2. Fred Bauder 13:20, 23 May 2007 (UTC) reply
3. A lack of being blocked for 3RR does not mean a lack of edit-warring. I think this is sufficient evidence. James F. (talk) 13:18, 25 May 2007 (UTC) reply
4. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:04, 30 May 2007 (UTC) reply
5. FloNight 13:25, 5 June 2007 (UTC) reply
6. jpgordon ^∇∆∇∆ 05:16, 6 June 2007 (UTC) reply
7. SimonP 11:56, 6 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Move-warring on Central Bank of the Republic of China (Taiwan)

2) The article Central Bank of the Republic of China (Taiwan) has been the subject of heavy move-warring. It was moved thirteen times in the space of eleven days, six times each by TingMing and Konekoniku and once by HongQiGong [7]. A discussion was finally started at 1.29 on May 8 by TingMing, ( Talk:Central_Bank_of_the_Republic_of_China_(Taiwan)#Proof_that_name_not_changed). He was then blocked by Loren36 at 1.40 for "Continueed edit warring after warning", who then reverted him at 1.40. Konekoniku was not blocked. The resulting discussion has not yet produced a clearcut resolution.

Support:

1. Blnguyen ( bananabucket) 06:40, 23 May 2007 (UTC) reply
2. Fred Bauder 13:20, 23 May 2007 (UTC) reply
3. James F. (talk) 13:18, 25 May 2007 (UTC) reply
4. Kirill Lokshin 16:19, 25 May 2007 (UTC) reply
5. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:04, 30 May 2007 (UTC) reply
6. FloNight 13:25, 5 June 2007 (UTC) reply
7. jpgordon ^∇∆∇∆ 05:16, 6 June 2007 (UTC) reply
8. SimonP 11:56, 6 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Legal status of Taiwan

3) On May 7, TingMing made various changes to the article in five consecutive edits to Legal status of Taiwan. They were reverted, and when TingMing reverted again, Loren36 reverted him [8]. Loren36 then blocked him, stating "Repeated edit warring and deletion of opposing POVs from Legal status of Taiwan. 2nd disruption block" despite being involved.

Support:

1. Blnguyen ( bananabucket) 06:40, 23 May 2007 (UTC) reply
2. Fred Bauder 13:20, 23 May 2007 (UTC) reply
3. James F. (talk) 13:18, 25 May 2007 (UTC) reply
4. Kirill Lokshin 16:19, 25 May 2007 (UTC) reply
5. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:04, 30 May 2007 (UTC) reply
6. FloNight 13:25, 5 June 2007 (UTC) reply
7. jpgordon ^∇∆∇∆ 05:16, 6 June 2007 (UTC) reply
8. SimonP 11:56, 6 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Sockpuppets

4) On June 1, TingMing was blocked by Tariqabjotu for four days. [9]. He evaded this with a sockpuppet, DoctorPP - see Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Nationalist#Nationalist_.2F_TingMing.

Support:

1. Blnguyen ( bananabucket) 03:59, 5 June 2007 (UTC) reply
2. James F. (talk) 11:43, 5 June 2007 (UTC) reply
3. FloNight 13:25, 5 June 2007 (UTC) reply
4. jpgordon ^∇∆∇∆ 05:16, 6 June 2007 (UTC) reply
5. SimonP 11:56, 6 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Vandalism

5) TingMing vandalised John Smith's userpage by removing a barnstar given to him by a third party. [10]

Support:

1. Blnguyen ( bananabucket) 03:59, 5 June 2007 (UTC) reply
2. It was not an accidental error so it appears to be vandalism to me. FloNight 13:25, 5 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

1. This is a bit strong for a single count of vandalism. Not sure. James F. (talk) 11:43, 5 June 2007 (UTC) reply
2. SimonP 11:56, 6 June 2007 (UTC) reply

TingMing

5) TingMing persistently flouts the naming consensus guidelines as established at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Chinese)#ROC/Taiwan Naming Conventions (Here we go again...) and Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Chinese)#Proposed guidelines, engaging in reversions with respect to the use of "ROC" and "Taiwan" in spite of this.

Support:

1. Blnguyen ( bananabucket) 03:59, 5 June 2007 (UTC) reply
2. James F. (talk) 11:43, 5 June 2007 (UTC) reply
3. FloNight 13:25, 5 June 2007 (UTC) reply
4. jpgordon ^∇∆∇∆ 05:16, 6 June 2007 (UTC) reply
5. SimonP 11:56, 6 June 2007 (UTC) reply

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.

TingMing banned

1) TingMing ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is banned from Wikipedia for a period of one year.

Support:

1. Kirill Lokshin 18:14, 21 May 2007 (UTC) reply
2. Fred Bauder 13:20, 23 May 2007 (UTC) reply
3. James F. (talk) 13:18, 25 May 2007 (UTC) reply
4. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:04, 30 May 2007 (UTC) reply
5. Found some more stuff. Blnguyen ( bananabucket) 04:00, 5 June 2007 (UTC) reply
6. FloNight 13:26, 5 June 2007 (UTC) reply
7. -- jpgordon ^∇∆∇∆ 05:14, 6 June 2007 (UTC) reply
8. SimonP 11:56, 6 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Template

2) {text of proposed remedy}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

General

I would like to observe that I have not evaluated the actions of Ideogram or Certified gangsta relative to those of TingMing. I believe that the Committee should move away from attempting to achieve parity in its remedies among those involved in a particular dispute. Instead, we should evaluate the actions of each disputant individually in light of the disputant's contribution history and any exculpatory or mitigating factors that may be present. TingMing's behavior poses a problem, but our findings should not be construed to indicate that TingMing's behavior is necessarily more egregious than that of others involved in closely related disputes. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:25, 30 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Implementation notes

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

• Is the remedy of 1-year ban still in effect, or considered moot? - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 16:06, 16 June 2007 (UTC) reply
  • See the discussion of a similar issue in the implementation notes on the E104421-Tajik case. But what's actually unclear is whether we are meant to promulgate the decision as written at all, or just close the case as dismissed/moot. I suppose that unless instructed otherwise we would notify the decision as per usual. Newyorkbrad 04:28, 17 June 2007 (UTC) reply
    • I think it should just be shut down. -- jpgordon ^∇∆∇∆ 05:00, 17 June 2007 (UTC) reply
      • Voting to close but think that the one year ban should stand in case the indefinate ban is lifted. FloNight 20:48, 19 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Vote

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

1. Move to close as moot. Ting Ming is a banned vandal; there's no reason to continue this. -- jpgordon ^∇∆∇∆ 07:39, 15 June 2007 (UTC) reply
2. Close. - SimonP 17:15, 15 June 2007 (UTC) reply
3. Close. Kirill Lokshin 21:41, 15 June 2007 (UTC) reply
4. Close, but want the passed proposals to be enforce. FloNight 20:49, 19 June 2007 (UTC) reply
5. Close, yes. James F. (talk) 11:28, 20 June 2007 (UTC) reply