all proposed

After considering /Evidence and discussing proposals with other Arbitrators, parties and others at /Workshop 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.
• Items that receive a majority "oppose" vote will be formally rejected.
• Items that do not receive a majority "support" or "oppose" vote will be open to possible amendment by any Arbitrator if they so chooses. After the amendment process is complete, the item will be voted on one last time.

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.

On this case, no Arbitrators are recused and 3 are inactive, so 6 votes are a majority.

For all items

Proposed wording to be modified by Arbitrators and then voted on. Non-Arbitrators may comment on the talk page.

Place those on /Workshop.

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

Username

1) Choosing the name of a well-known living or recently deceased people (e.g. Chuck Norris, Ken Lay) as a username is unacceptable, Wikipedia:Username.

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 17:52, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. SimonP 20:59, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. Charles Matthews 16:49, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:08, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. Dmcdevit·t 23:29, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
6. James F. (talk) 11:58, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Disruptive editors

2) Users who disrupt the editing of an article or set of articles may be banned from those articles, or, in extreme cases, from the site.

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 17:52, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. SimonP 20:59, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. Charles Matthews 16:49, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:08, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. Dmcdevit·t 23:29, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
6. James F. (talk) 11:58, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

No personal attacks

3) Personal attacks are unacceptable; see Wikipedia:No personal attacks.

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 17:52, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. SimonP 20:59, 15 August 2006 (UTC)#[reply]
3. Charles Matthews 16:49, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:08, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. Dmcdevit·t 23:29, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
6. James F. (talk) 11:58, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Locus of dispute

1) It is alleged that Chiang Kai-shek, who has changed his name to Heqong (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), has disrupted editing of articles which relate to the Republic of China. Typical edits advance a pro-independence point of view [1].

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 17:52, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

1. He actually seems to be advocating the view that the Republic of China is the legitimate government of China, quite a different view from the pro-independence one. In reality the actual POV being advocated is not important, and I've proposed a finding at 1.1 that simply drops the last sentence. SimonP 20:59, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. Prefer 1.1. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:08, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. In favor of 1.1. Dmcdevit·t 23:29, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. James F. (talk) 11:58, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

1. Charles Matthews 16:49, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Locus of dispute (modified)

1.1) It is alleged that Chiang_Kai-shek, who has changed his name to Heqong (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), has disrupted editing of articles which relate to the Republic of China.

Support:

1. SimonP 20:59, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. Fred Bauder 12:55, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. Charles Matthews 16:49, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:08, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. Dmcdevit·t 23:29, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
6. James F. (talk) 11:58, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

The name Chiang Kai-shek

2) Chiang Kai-shek, while famous, is long dead. A user choosing that name could not be reasonably confused with him. However Chiang Kai-shek has changed his name to Heqong.

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 17:52, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. SimonP 20:59, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. Charles Matthews 16:49, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:08, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. Though agree with Dom. James F. (talk) 11:58, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

1. There are more considerations than whether a person is dead or not (that would be if we are only concerned about impersonation or libel). Hitler, Stalin, and Tojo-related names have all been blocked for being inflammatory, other names that promote an agenda are inappropriate also; this could still qualify as either of those. Dmcdevit·t 23:29, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attacks by Heqong

3) Heqong has made personal attacks [2], [3], and [4].

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 17:52, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. SimonP 20:59, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. Charles Matthews 16:49, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:08, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. Dmcdevit·t 23:29, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
6. James F. (talk) 11:58, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Tendentious editing by Heqong

4) Heqong has engaged in a pattern of tendentious editing, Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Heqong/Evidence#Tendentious_edits_to_articles_related_to_Taiwan_and_the_Republic_of_China.

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 17:52, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. SimonP 20:59, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. Charles Matthews 16:49, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:08, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. Dmcdevit·t 23:29, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
6. James F. (talk) 11:58, 2 September 2006 (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.

Heqong placed on Probation

1) Heqong is placed on Probation. He may be banned for a reasonable period of time by any administrator from an article or set of articles which he disrupts by tendentious editing. All bans to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Heqong#Log of blocks and bans.

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 17:52, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. SimonP 20:59, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. Charles Matthews 16:49, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:08, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. Dmcdevit·t 23:29, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
6. James F. (talk) 11:58, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Heqong banned

2) Heqong is banned for one month for personal attacks.

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 17:52, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. SimonP 20:59, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. Charles Matthews 16:49, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:08, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. Dmcdevit·t 23:29, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
6. James F. (talk) 11:58, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Heqong placed on personal attack parole

3) Heqong is placed on personal attack parole.

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 17:52, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. SimonP 20:59, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. Charles Matthews 16:49, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:08, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. Dmcdevit·t 23:29, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
6. James F. (talk) 11:58, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Enforcement by block

1) Should Heqong violate a ban he may be blocked for a reasonable period of time. All blocks to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Heqong#Log of blocks and bans.

Support:

1. SimonP 20:59, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. Fred Bauder 12:55, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. Charles Matthews 16:49, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:08, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. Dmcdevit·t 23:29, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
6. James F. (talk) 11:58, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Discussion by Arbitrators

Heqong appears to have quit editing. Fred Bauder 17:52, 2 August 2006 (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.

• The majority for this case is 6.
• James_F's clarification on the operation of abstention is noted.
• Principles: all pass 6-0.
• Findings: 1.1, 3 and 4 pass 6-0. 2 passes 5-0 with one abstention. 1 fails.
• Remedies: all pass 6-0.
• Enforcement: passes 6-0.

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. Everything now passes (where Dom recuses, he reduces quorum to 5, so that passes too); close. James F. (talk) 12:08, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. Close Fred Bauder 12:28, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. SimonP 12:59, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. Close. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:32, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]