John Vandenberg (talk | contribs) |
→Proposed principles: Voted on principles |
||
Line 61: | Line 61: | ||
:# [[User:PhilKnight|PhilKnight]] ([[User talk:PhilKnight|talk]]) 23:35, 23 September 2011 (UTC) |
:# [[User:PhilKnight|PhilKnight]] ([[User talk:PhilKnight|talk]]) 23:35, 23 September 2011 (UTC) |
||
:# [[User:Casliber|Casliber]] ([[User talk:Casliber|talk]] '''·''' [[Special:Contributions/Casliber|contribs]]) 03:04, 24 September 2011 (UTC) |
:# [[User:Casliber|Casliber]] ([[User talk:Casliber|talk]] '''·''' [[Special:Contributions/Casliber|contribs]]) 03:04, 24 September 2011 (UTC) |
||
:# Bog standard. [[User:SirFozzie|SirFozzie]] ([[User talk:SirFozzie|talk]]) 09:28, 24 September 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:Oppose: |
:Oppose: |
||
:# |
:# |
||
Line 79: | Line 79: | ||
:# [[User:PhilKnight|PhilKnight]] ([[User talk:PhilKnight|talk]]) 23:36, 23 September 2011 (UTC) |
:# [[User:PhilKnight|PhilKnight]] ([[User talk:PhilKnight|talk]]) 23:36, 23 September 2011 (UTC) |
||
:# [[User:Casliber|Casliber]] ([[User talk:Casliber|talk]] '''·''' [[Special:Contributions/Casliber|contribs]]) 03:04, 24 September 2011 (UTC) |
:# [[User:Casliber|Casliber]] ([[User talk:Casliber|talk]] '''·''' [[Special:Contributions/Casliber|contribs]]) 03:04, 24 September 2011 (UTC) |
||
:# [[User:SirFozzie|SirFozzie]] ([[User talk:SirFozzie|talk]]) 09:28, 24 September 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:Oppose: |
:Oppose: |
||
Line 97: | Line 98: | ||
:# [[User:PhilKnight|PhilKnight]] ([[User talk:PhilKnight|talk]]) 23:36, 23 September 2011 (UTC) |
:# [[User:PhilKnight|PhilKnight]] ([[User talk:PhilKnight|talk]]) 23:36, 23 September 2011 (UTC) |
||
:# [[User:Casliber|Casliber]] ([[User talk:Casliber|talk]] '''·''' [[Special:Contributions/Casliber|contribs]]) 03:04, 24 September 2011 (UTC) |
:# [[User:Casliber|Casliber]] ([[User talk:Casliber|talk]] '''·''' [[Special:Contributions/Casliber|contribs]]) 03:04, 24 September 2011 (UTC) |
||
:# [[User:SirFozzie|SirFozzie]] ([[User talk:SirFozzie|talk]]) 09:28, 24 September 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:Oppose: |
:Oppose: |
||
Line 114: | Line 116: | ||
:# [[User:PhilKnight|PhilKnight]] ([[User talk:PhilKnight|talk]]) 23:38, 23 September 2011 (UTC) |
:# [[User:PhilKnight|PhilKnight]] ([[User talk:PhilKnight|talk]]) 23:38, 23 September 2011 (UTC) |
||
:# [[User:Casliber|Casliber]] ([[User talk:Casliber|talk]] '''·''' [[Special:Contributions/Casliber|contribs]]) 03:04, 24 September 2011 (UTC) |
:# [[User:Casliber|Casliber]] ([[User talk:Casliber|talk]] '''·''' [[Special:Contributions/Casliber|contribs]]) 03:04, 24 September 2011 (UTC) |
||
:# This could be used in so many of these such disputes. [[User:SirFozzie|SirFozzie]] ([[User talk:SirFozzie|talk]]) 09:28, 24 September 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:Oppose: |
:Oppose: |
||
Line 131: | Line 134: | ||
:# [[User:PhilKnight|PhilKnight]] ([[User talk:PhilKnight|talk]]) 23:38, 23 September 2011 (UTC) |
:# [[User:PhilKnight|PhilKnight]] ([[User talk:PhilKnight|talk]]) 23:38, 23 September 2011 (UTC) |
||
:# [[User:Casliber|Casliber]] ([[User talk:Casliber|talk]] '''·''' [[Special:Contributions/Casliber|contribs]]) 03:04, 24 September 2011 (UTC) |
:# [[User:Casliber|Casliber]] ([[User talk:Casliber|talk]] '''·''' [[Special:Contributions/Casliber|contribs]]) 03:04, 24 September 2011 (UTC) |
||
:# Or in short, the talk page is not for establishing TRUTH, it's for improving the article. [[User:SirFozzie|SirFozzie]] ([[User talk:SirFozzie|talk]]) 09:28, 24 September 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:Oppose: |
:Oppose: |
||
Line 148: | Line 152: | ||
:# [[User:PhilKnight|PhilKnight]] ([[User talk:PhilKnight|talk]]) 23:39, 23 September 2011 (UTC) |
:# [[User:PhilKnight|PhilKnight]] ([[User talk:PhilKnight|talk]]) 23:39, 23 September 2011 (UTC) |
||
:# [[User:Casliber|Casliber]] ([[User talk:Casliber|talk]] '''·''' [[Special:Contributions/Casliber|contribs]]) 03:04, 24 September 2011 (UTC) |
:# [[User:Casliber|Casliber]] ([[User talk:Casliber|talk]] '''·''' [[Special:Contributions/Casliber|contribs]]) 03:04, 24 September 2011 (UTC) |
||
:# Key words being good-faith. [[User:SirFozzie|SirFozzie]] ([[User talk:SirFozzie|talk]]) 09:28, 24 September 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:Oppose: |
:Oppose: |
||
Line 165: | Line 170: | ||
:# [[User:PhilKnight|PhilKnight]] ([[User talk:PhilKnight|talk]]) 23:39, 23 September 2011 (UTC) |
:# [[User:PhilKnight|PhilKnight]] ([[User talk:PhilKnight|talk]]) 23:39, 23 September 2011 (UTC) |
||
:# [[User:Casliber|Casliber]] ([[User talk:Casliber|talk]] '''·''' [[Special:Contributions/Casliber|contribs]]) 03:04, 24 September 2011 (UTC) |
:# [[User:Casliber|Casliber]] ([[User talk:Casliber|talk]] '''·''' [[Special:Contributions/Casliber|contribs]]) 03:04, 24 September 2011 (UTC) |
||
:# [[User:SirFozzie|SirFozzie]] ([[User talk:SirFozzie|talk]]) 09:28, 24 September 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:Oppose: |
:Oppose: |
||
Line 182: | Line 188: | ||
:# [[User:PhilKnight|PhilKnight]] ([[User talk:PhilKnight|talk]]) 23:40, 23 September 2011 (UTC) |
:# [[User:PhilKnight|PhilKnight]] ([[User talk:PhilKnight|talk]]) 23:40, 23 September 2011 (UTC) |
||
:# [[User:Casliber|Casliber]] ([[User talk:Casliber|talk]] '''·''' [[Special:Contributions/Casliber|contribs]]) 03:04, 24 September 2011 (UTC) |
:# [[User:Casliber|Casliber]] ([[User talk:Casliber|talk]] '''·''' [[Special:Contributions/Casliber|contribs]]) 03:04, 24 September 2011 (UTC) |
||
:# 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) [[User:SirFozzie|SirFozzie]] ([[User talk:SirFozzie|talk]]) 09:28, 24 September 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:Oppose: |
:Oppose: |
||
Line 199: | Line 206: | ||
:# [[User:PhilKnight|PhilKnight]] ([[User talk:PhilKnight|talk]]) 23:40, 23 September 2011 (UTC) |
:# [[User:PhilKnight|PhilKnight]] ([[User talk:PhilKnight|talk]]) 23:40, 23 September 2011 (UTC) |
||
:# [[User:Casliber|Casliber]] ([[User talk:Casliber|talk]] '''·''' [[Special:Contributions/Casliber|contribs]]) 03:04, 24 September 2011 (UTC) |
:# [[User:Casliber|Casliber]] ([[User talk:Casliber|talk]] '''·''' [[Special:Contributions/Casliber|contribs]]) 03:04, 24 September 2011 (UTC) |
||
:# again, this is not a new or uncommon issue in nationalist areas such as this. [[User:SirFozzie|SirFozzie]] ([[User talk:SirFozzie|talk]]) 09:28, 24 September 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:Oppose: |
:Oppose: |
Revision as of 09:28, 24 September 2011
Case clerk: TBD Drafting arbitrator: TBD
Wikipedia Arbitration |
---|
![]() |
|
Track related changes |
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 active arbitrators. Expression error: Missing operand for +. support or oppose votes are a majority.
Expression error: Unexpected mod operatorAbstentions | Support votes needed for majority |
---|
If observing editors notice any discrepancies between the arbitrators' tallies and the final decision or the #Implementation notes, you should to the clerk talk page. Similarly, arbitrators may request clerk assistance via the same method, or via the clerks' mailing list.
Proposed motions
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.
Template
1) {text of proposed motion}
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
- Comments:
Proposed temporary injunctions
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.
Template
1) {text of proposed orders}
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
- Comments:
Proposed final decision
Proposed principles
Purpose of Wikipedia
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:
- John Vandenberg (chat) 22:48, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
- The Cavalry (Message me) 23:09, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
- PhilKnight (talk) 23:35, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
- Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:04, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
- Bog standard. SirFozzie (talk) 09:28, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
- Comments:
Neutral point of view and undue weight
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:
- John Vandenberg (chat) 22:48, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
- PhilKnight (talk) 23:36, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
- Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:04, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
- SirFozzie (talk) 09:28, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
- Comments:
Decorum
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:
- John Vandenberg (chat) 22:48, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
- PhilKnight (talk) 23:36, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
- Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:04, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
- SirFozzie (talk) 09:28, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
- Comments:
Consensus
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 Articles for deletion for deletion discussions and page move discussions, have been created to seek and where possible attain consensus on specific types of content disagreements.
- Support:
- John Vandenberg (chat) 22:48, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
- PhilKnight (talk) 23:38, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
- Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:04, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
- This could be used in so many of these such disputes. SirFozzie (talk) 09:28, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
- Comments:
Talk pages
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:
- John Vandenberg (chat) 22:48, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
- PhilKnight (talk) 23:38, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
- Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:04, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
- 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)
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
- Comments:
Role of the Arbitration Committee
6) It is not the role of the Arbitration Committee to settle good-faith content disputes among editors.
- Support:
- John Vandenberg (chat) 22:48, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
- PhilKnight (talk) 23:39, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
- Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:04, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
- Key words being good-faith. SirFozzie (talk) 09:28, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
- Comments:
Disruptive and tendentious editing
7) Contributors who engage in tendentious or disruptive editing, such as by engaging in sustained aggressive point-of-view editing may be subjected to editing restrictions on the articles in question or be banned from the topic or the site.
- Support:
- John Vandenberg (chat) 22:48, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
- PhilKnight (talk) 23:39, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
- Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:04, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
- SirFozzie (talk) 09:28, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
- Comments:
Edit wars considered harmful
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:
- John Vandenberg (chat) 22:48, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
- PhilKnight (talk) 23:40, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
- Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:04, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
- 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)
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
- Comments:
Disputes regarding article titles
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:
- John Vandenberg (chat) 22:48, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
- PhilKnight (talk) 23:40, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
- Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:04, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
- again, this is not a new or uncommon issue in nationalist areas such as this. SirFozzie (talk) 09:28, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
- Comments:
Findings of fact
Focus of the dispute
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 title to give the Senkaku Islands article, and that of the articles related to this topic.
- Support:
- John Vandenberg (chat) 22:50, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
- PhilKnight (talk) 23:41, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
- Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:06, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
- Comments:
Real world catalyst
2) This topic has been disputed on Wikipedia since 2003, however there was renewed interest and urgency in the dispute after the 2010 Senkaku boat collision incident in September 2010.
- Support:
- John Vandenberg (chat) 22:50, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
- PhilKnight (talk) 23:42, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
- Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:06, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
- Comments:
Mediation unsuccessful
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), without a satisfactory resolution.
- Support:
- John Vandenberg (chat) 22:50, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
- PhilKnight (talk) 23:42, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
- Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:06, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
- Comments:
Tenmei's history
4) Tenmei (talk · contribs) was topic banned for six months as a remedy to the Tang Dynasty arbitration case of 2009, and during this 6 months, was only permitted to edit Wikipedia with the guidance of six publicly identified mentors.
- Support:
- John Vandenberg (chat) 22:50, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
- PhilKnight (talk) 23:46, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
- Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:06, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
- Comments:
Tenmei and disputes
5) Tenmei's manner and style of communications during disputes has not improved. Whether intentional or not, Tenmei's involvement in this dispute has aggravated 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:
- John Vandenberg (chat) 22:50, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
- PhilKnight (talk) 23:53, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
- Comments:
Bobthefish2's history
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:
- John Vandenberg (chat) 22:50, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
- PhilKnight (talk) 23:56, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
- Comments:
Bobthefish2
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:
- John Vandenberg (chat) 22:50, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
- PhilKnight (talk) 23:59, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
- Comments:
STSC's history
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:
- John Vandenberg (chat) 22:50, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
- PhilKnight (talk) 00:01, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
- Comments:
STSC
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:
- John Vandenberg (chat) 22:50, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
- PhilKnight (talk) 00:01, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
- 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)
Remedies
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.
Tenmei topic banned
Tenmei topic banned for one year
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:
- Second preference. John Vandenberg (chat) 22:57, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
- Comments:
Tenmei topic banned indefinitely
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:
- First choice. John Vandenberg (chat) 22:57, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
- Comments:
Tenmei warned
2) Tenmei is warned to promptly disengage from any topic on English Wikipedia which is being disputed by other editors.
- Support:
- John Vandenberg (chat) 22:57, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
- Comments:
Tenmei banned
Tenmei banned for one year
3A) Tenmei is banned for one year.
- Support:
- First preference. John Vandenberg (chat) 22:57, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
- Given the underlying problem is difficulty with communication, I think a site ban, as opposed to a topic ban, is required. PhilKnight (talk) 00:06, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
- Comments:
Tenmei banned indefinitely
3B) Tenmei is banned indefinitely.
- Support:
- Second preference. John Vandenberg (chat) 22:57, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
- Comments:
Bobthefish2 advised
4) Bobthefish2 is advised to step away from this dispute and the parties involved in this dispute.
- Support:
- John Vandenberg (chat) 22:57, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
- Comments:
- I think I'd prefer a 1 year topic ban. PhilKnight (talk) 00:11, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
STSC warned
5) STSC is warned to avoid any sexualisation of discussions, especially during disputes.
- Support:
- John Vandenberg (chat) 22:57, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
- Comments:
- Again, would prefer a topic ban. PhilKnight (talk) 00:12, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
Parties reminded
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:
- John Vandenberg (chat) 22:57, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
- PhilKnight (talk) 00:13, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
- Comments:
Discretionary sanctions
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:
- John Vandenberg (chat) 22:57, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
- PhilKnight (talk) 00:14, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
- Comments:
Discretionary sanctions for naming of disputed geographical regions
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:
- 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)
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
- Comments:
Enforcement
Enforcement by block
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:
- John Vandenberg (chat) 22:58, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
- PhilKnight (talk) 00:15, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
- Comments:
Discussion by Arbitrators
General
Motion to close
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.
- Proposals which pass
- {Passing principles}
- {Passing findings}
- {Passing remedies}
- {Passing enforcement provisions}
- Proposals which do not pass
- {Failing principles}
- {Failing findings}
- {Failing remedies}
- {Failing enforcement provisions}
Vote
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
-
- Oppose
-
- Comments
-