This case has closed, please do not make further edits to this page.

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 11 active arbitrators of whom 1 is 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

Consensus

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

Support:

1. Kirill Lokshin 23:44, 22 April 2007 (UTC) reply
2. Fred Bauder 19:33, 23 April 2007 (UTC) reply
3. -- jpgordon ^∇∆∇∆ 00:30, 24 April 2007 (UTC) reply
4. FloNight 23:12, 24 April 2007 (UTC) reply
5. Mackensen (talk) 15:57, 26 April 2007 (UTC) reply
6. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 23:44, 2 May 2007 (UTC) reply
7. Charles Matthews 09:52, 4 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Tu quoque

2) Wikipedia editors are expected to adhere to policy regardless of the behavior of those they are in disputes with; inappropriate behavior by others does not legitimize one's own.

Support:

1. Kirill Lokshin 23:44, 22 April 2007 (UTC) reply
2. Fred Bauder 19:33, 23 April 2007 (UTC) reply
3. -- jpgordon ^∇∆∇∆ 00:30, 24 April 2007 (UTC) reply
4. FloNight 23:12, 24 April 2007 (UTC) reply
5. Mackensen (talk) 15:57, 26 April 2007 (UTC) reply
6. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 23:44, 2 May 2007 (UTC) reply
7. Charles Matthews 09:52, 4 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Disruptive editing

3) Users who engage in disruptive editing may be banned from affected articles or in extreme cases the site. Other remedies, such as revert paroles, may be used to assist an editor in contributing in a more collaborative manner.

Support:

1. FloNight 20:27, 24 April 2007 (UTC) reply
2. Kirill Lokshin 20:42, 24 April 2007 (UTC) reply
3. -- jpgordon ^∇∆∇∆ 23:19, 24 April 2007 (UTC) reply
4. Mackensen (talk) 15:57, 26 April 2007 (UTC) reply
5. Fred Bauder 21:13, 28 April 2007 (UTC) reply
6. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 23:44, 2 May 2007 (UTC) reply
7. Charles Matthews 09:52, 4 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Template

4) {text of proposed principle}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Locus of dispute

1) The dispute revolves primarily around a number of articles related to Taiwan (particularly Culture of Taiwan); other articles have also become forums for the dispute as parties have moved to editing them.

Support:

1. Kirill Lokshin 23:44, 22 April 2007 (UTC) reply
2. Fred Bauder 19:33, 23 April 2007 (UTC) reply
3. -- jpgordon ^∇∆∇∆ 00:30, 24 April 2007 (UTC) reply
4. FloNight 23:12, 24 April 2007 (UTC) reply
5. Mackensen (talk) 15:57, 26 April 2007 (UTC) reply
6. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 23:44, 2 May 2007 (UTC) reply
7. Charles Matthews 09:52, 4 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Certified.Gangsta

2) Certified.Gangsta ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has engaged in extensive edit-warring ( [1]).

Support:

1. Kirill Lokshin 23:44, 22 April 2007 (UTC) reply
2. Fred Bauder 19:33, 23 April 2007 (UTC) reply
3. -- jpgordon ^∇∆∇∆ 00:30, 24 April 2007 (UTC) reply
4. FloNight 23:12, 24 April 2007 (UTC) reply
5. Mackensen (talk) 15:57, 26 April 2007 (UTC) reply
6. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 23:44, 2 May 2007 (UTC) reply
7. Charles Matthews 09:52, 4 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Ideogram

3) Ideogram ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has engaged in extensive edit-warring ( [2]).

Support:

1. Kirill Lokshin 23:44, 22 April 2007 (UTC) reply
2. Fred Bauder 19:33, 23 April 2007 (UTC) reply
3. -- jpgordon ^∇∆∇∆ 00:30, 24 April 2007 (UTC) reply
4. FloNight 23:12, 24 April 2007 (UTC) reply
5. Mackensen (talk) 15:57, 26 April 2007 (UTC) reply
6. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 23:44, 2 May 2007 (UTC) reply
7. Charles Matthews 09:52, 4 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Ideogram's stance

4) Ideogram ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) believes that poor behavior is acceptable when another editor has engaged in it first; he has stated that "I allow other people to show me what rules they play by and then play by their rules" ( [3]).

Support:

1. Kirill Lokshin 23:44, 22 April 2007 (UTC) reply
2. Fred Bauder 19:33, 23 April 2007 (UTC) reply
3. -- jpgordon ^∇∆∇∆ 00:30, 24 April 2007 (UTC) reply
4. FloNight 23:12, 24 April 2007 (UTC) reply
5. Mackensen (talk) 15:57, 26 April 2007 (UTC) reply
6. Charles Matthews 09:52, 4 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

1. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 23:44, 2 May 2007 (UTC) Wording. I believe it is unwise to attempt to summarize another's beliefs. reply

Abstain:

4a) Ideogram ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has responded in kind to poor behavior exemplified by others.

Support:

1. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 23:46, 2 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Template

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.

Certified.Gangsta placed on revert parole

1) Certified.Gangsta ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is placed on standard revert parole for one year. He is limited to one revert per page per week, excepting obvious vandalism. Further, he is required to discuss any content reversions on the page's talk page.

Support:

1. Kirill Lokshin 23:44, 22 April 2007 (UTC) reply
2. Fred Bauder 19:33, 23 April 2007 (UTC) reply
3. -- jpgordon ^∇∆∇∆ 00:30, 24 April 2007 (UTC) reply
4. FloNight 23:12, 24 April 2007 (UTC) reply
5. Mackensen (talk) 15:58, 26 April 2007 (UTC) reply
6. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 23:44, 2 May 2007 (UTC) reply
7. Charles Matthews 09:52, 4 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Ideogram placed on revert parole

2) Ideogram ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is placed on standard revert parole for one year. He is limited to one revert per page per week, excepting obvious vandalism. Further, he is required to discuss any content reversions on the page's talk page.

Support:

1. Kirill Lokshin 23:44, 22 April 2007 (UTC) reply
2. Fred Bauder 19:33, 23 April 2007 (UTC) reply
3. -- jpgordon ^∇∆∇∆ 00:30, 24 April 2007 (UTC) reply
4. FloNight 23:12, 24 April 2007 (UTC) reply
5. Mackensen (talk) 15:58, 26 April 2007 (UTC) reply
6. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 23:44, 2 May 2007 (UTC) reply
7. Charles Matthews 09:52, 4 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Ideogram admonished

3) Ideogram ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is strongly admonished to fully adhere to all Wikipedia policies regardless of the degree to which other editors may or may not do so.

Support:

1. Kirill Lokshin 23:44, 22 April 2007 (UTC) reply
2. Fred Bauder 19:33, 23 April 2007 (UTC) reply
3. -- jpgordon ^∇∆∇∆ 00:30, 24 April 2007 (UTC) reply
4. FloNight 23:12, 24 April 2007 (UTC) reply
5. Mackensen (talk) 15:58, 26 April 2007 (UTC) reply
6. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 23:44, 2 May 2007 (UTC) I have taken the liberty of toning down the wording slightly. I believe that "strongly admonished" should be reserved for extreme situations involving people who really ought to know better. reply
7. Charles Matthews 09:52, 4 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Template

4) {text of proposed remedy}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Enforcement by block

1) Violations of paroles and probations imposed on parties of this case shall be enforced by blocks for an appropriate period of time. Blocks and bans are to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Certified.Gangsta-Ideogram#Log of blocks and bans.

Support:

1. Kirill Lokshin 23:44, 22 April 2007 (UTC) reply
2. Fred Bauder 19:33, 23 April 2007 (UTC) reply
3. -- jpgordon ^∇∆∇∆ 00:30, 24 April 2007 (UTC) reply
4. FloNight 23:12, 24 April 2007 (UTC) reply
5. Mackensen (talk) 15:58, 26 April 2007 (UTC) reply
6. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 23:44, 2 May 2007 (UTC) reply
7. Charles Matthews 09:52, 4 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

General

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.

• As of now, everything has passed except proposed Finding of fact 4 and new alternate proposal 4.1. Newyorkbrad 00:54, 3 May 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Finding 4 now passes as well. Newyorkbrad 11:58, 4 May 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. Close. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 23:44, 2 May 2007 (UTC) reply
2. Close. Charles Matthews 09:52, 4 May 2007 (UTC) reply
3. Close. FloNight 10:01, 4 May 2007 (UTC) reply
4. Close. -- jpgordon ^∇∆∇∆ 14:41, 4 May 2007 (UTC) reply
5. Close. Kirill Lokshin 14:47, 4 May 2007 (UTC) reply