all proposed

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 he 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 at least 5 are inactive, it is uncertain how many votes are a majority as the case is old and some of the active arbitrators may not participate.

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 the discussion page.

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) Wikipedia has adopted a number of policies and guidelines, see Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines. While policies are binding on Wikipedia users, guidelines are not, though they should be applied in most cases. This includes Naming conventions, in this case Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Chinese).

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 17:53, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
2. ➥the Epopt 21:38, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
3. James F. (talk) 15:44, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
4. →Raul654 23:31, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
5. Neutrality^talk 13:53, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
6. Kelly Martin (talk) 17:59, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

2) Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(Chinese)#Political_NPOV) provides, in pertinent part:

Wikipedia entries should avoid taking sides on controversial sovereignty issues such as the status of Taiwan and Tibet. Although the United Nations and most sovereign states in the world have recognized the People's Republic of China as the sole government of China, Wikipedia should reflect the neutral reality and not use the term "China" to coincide with any particular state or government. In particular, the word "China" (in a political, diplomatic or national sense refering to current affairs) should not be used to be synonymously with areas under the current administration (government) of the People's Republic of China i.e. (geographically) within Mainland China. (Historical and such 'old-name' Geographic and political references before 1945—1947 excepted.)

As a general rule of thumb, the official political terms "People's Republic of China" or "PRC" and "Republic of China" or "ROC" should be used in political contexts (that is, to describe the existing regimes or governments) rather than the imprecise and politically charged terms "China" and "Taiwan." For example, "Hu Jintao is the President of the People's Republic of China" is preferred over "Hu Jintao is the President of China." Likewise, one should write "one must be an ROC citizen to vote in the ROC presidential election" as opposed to "one must be a Taiwanese citizen to vote in the Taiwanese presidential election."

Taiwan should not be described either as an independent nation or as a part of the People's Republic of China. Wikipedia should merely state the de facto situation that Taiwan is governed by an indepedent government/state/regime called the "Republic of China." When it is necessary to describe the political status of Taiwan, special note should be made of Taiwan's complex position. Thus, the term "Taiwan" should only be used when referring to the island itself. Furthermore, the term "province of Taiwan" can be offensive and should only be used when attributed to its source or referring specifically to the existing division under the ROC (for example, "James Soong was the only popularly elected governor of Taiwan Province").

The term "mainland China" is a term which can be used when a comparison is to be made with Taiwan for non-political purposes. Hong Kong and Macau are generally not considered part of Mainland China, though under the jurisdiction of the PRC. Thus, it is more appropriate to write "many tourists from Hong Kong and Taiwan are visiting mainland China" than "many tourists from Hong Kong and Taiwan are visiting China" as the latter could imply that Hong Kong and Taiwan are not part of China.

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 17:53, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
2. ➥the Epopt 21:38, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
3. James F. (talk) 15:44, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
4. →Raul654 23:31, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
5. Neutrality^talk 13:53, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
6. Kelly Martin (talk) 17:59, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

3. A guideline such as Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Chinese) can be changed by the Wikipedia community, see how policies are decided. This policy provides for consensus decision-making by those users who are familiar with the matter, in this case, regular editors of Chinese-related topics.

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 17:53, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
2. ➥the Epopt 21:38, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
3. James F. (talk) 15:44, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
4. →Raul654 23:31, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
5. Neutrality^talk 13:53, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
6. Kelly Martin (talk) 17:59, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

4) An existing guideline such as Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Chinese) remains in full force and effect until it is changed in conformity with Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines#How are policies decided?,

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 17:53, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
2. ➥the Epopt 21:38, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
3. James F. (talk) 15:44, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
4. →Raul654 23:31, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
5. Neutrality^talk 13:53, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
6. Kelly Martin (talk) 17:59, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

5) All Wikipedia policies, guidelines and naming conventions should be applied in a thoughtful way appropriate to the circumstances of the situation. Rote, mechanical application of a naming convention is more likely to be disruptive than productive.

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 17:53, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
2. ➥the Epopt 21:38, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
3. James F. (talk) 15:44, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
4. →Raul654 23:31, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
5. Neutrality^talk 13:53, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
6. Kelly Martin (talk) 17:59, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

6) Wikipedia uses categories as an aid to the reader. They are not intended to be information in themselves, but are useful in finding information. As applied to this case, Literature of Hong Kong can appropriately be in both the category "Literature of Hong Kong" and "Literature of China" despite the possibility that some part of the literature of Hong Kong may not be included within the literature of China (perhaps a domestic sketch of an English household living in Hong Kong).

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 17:53, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
2. Veering toward the content guardrail ... ➥the Epopt 21:38, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
3. James F. (talk) 15:44, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
4. →Raul654 23:31, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
5. Neutrality^talk 13:53, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
6. Kelly Martin (talk) 17:59, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

7) A Wikipedia user's behavior must be considered in the context of the other editors editing in the same area. A user should not be singled out for behavior engaged in by others in the same editing context.

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 17:53, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
2. ➥the Epopt 21:38, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
3. James F. (talk) 15:44, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
4. →Raul654 23:31, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
5. Neutrality^talk 13:53, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
6. Kelly Martin (talk) 17:59, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

1) Instantnood (talk · contribs) has edited aggressively in the context of changing names and proposing page moves and surveys in the context of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Chinese) but has generally honored that policy. His adversaries SchmuckyTheCat (talk · contribs) Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Instantnood_2/Workshop#Massive_name_changes_by_STC and Huaiwei (talk · contribs) Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Instantnood_2/Workshop#Edit_history_of_List_of_companies_in_the_People.27s_Republic_of_China have been just as aggressive and disruptive and sometimes have not appropriately interpreted Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Chinese).

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 17:30, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
2. ➥the Epopt 21:38, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
3. James F. (talk) 15:44, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
4. →Raul654 23:31, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
5. Neutrality^talk 13:53, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
6. Kelly Martin (talk) 17:59, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

1.1) Instantnood (talk · contribs) sometimes insists on using the phrase "Mainland China" in contexts which seem incongruent with the sovereignty of the People's Republic of China [1].

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 15:41, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
2. James F. (talk) 19:46, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
3. →Raul654 21:17, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
4. ➥the Epopt 23:33, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

1. As this finding does not get to the essence of the matter, interminable edit warring, I suggest it be removed from the decision. Also, as in Chinese the word ordinarily translated as "city" is an administrative unit, the example is ambiguous, see talk. Fred Bauder 15:59, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

1. Neutrality^talk 13:53, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Relevant information:

• Please kindly refer to the exchange at the talk page. Thank you. — Instantnood 06:08, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

2) In pursuance of their views regarding disputed usage Huaiwei (talk · contribs) and SchmuckyTheCat (talk · contribs) have engaged in edit warring in order to preserve their preferred usage, for example repeatedly removing Economy of Hong Kong from Category Category:Economies by country [2] and [3].

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 17:42, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
2. James F. (talk) 19:46, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
3. Kelly Martin (talk) 17:59, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
4. →Raul654 21:17, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
5. ➥the Epopt 23:33, 15 November 2005 (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.

1) Instantnood (talk · contribs) is restricted to proposing only one page move, poll of editors, or policy change relating to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Chinese) per week.

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 18:09, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
2. ➥the Epopt 21:38, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
3. James F. (talk) 15:44, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
4. Neutrality^talk 13:53, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
5. Kelly Martin (talk) 17:59, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
6. Raul654 19:34, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

2) Instantnood (talk · contribs) is reminded to make useful edit summaries.

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 18:09, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
2. ➥the Epopt 21:38, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
3. But would prefer a much strong wording. Edit summaries are important. James F. (talk) 15:44, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
4. Neutrality^talk 13:53, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
5. Kelly Martin (talk) 17:59, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
6. Raul654 19:34, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

3) In order to craft a remedy which would apply to all the users involved in ongoing struggles over the matters involved here, Huaiwei (talk · contribs) is joined to this case.

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 14:05, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
2. ➥the Epopt 21:38, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
3. James F. (talk) 15:44, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
4. Neutrality^talk 13:53, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
5. Kelly Martin (talk) 17:59, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
6. Raul654 19:34, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

4) Instantnood (talk · contribs) is placed on Wikipedia:Probation for one year. This means that any administrator, in the exercise of their judgement for reasonable cause, documented in a section of this decision, may ban them from any article which relates to China which they disrupt by inappropriate editing. Instantnood must be notified on their talk page of any bans and a note must also placed on WP:AN/I. They may post suggestions on the talk page of any article they are banned from editing. This remedy is crafted to permit Instantnood continuing to edit articles in these areas which are not sources of controversy.

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 15:45, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
2. James F. (talk) 19:46, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
3. Kelly Martin (talk) 17:59, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
4. ➥the Epopt 23:35, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
5. Raul654 19:34, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

5) Huaiwei (talk · contribs) is placed on Wikipedia:Probation for one year. This means that any administrator, in the exercise of their judgement for reasonable cause, documented in a section of this decision, may ban them from any article which relates to China which they disrupt by inappropriate editing. Huaiwei must be notified on their talk page of any bans and a note must also placed on WP:AN/I. They may post suggestions on the talk page of any article they are banned from editing. This remedy is crafted to permit Huaiwei continuing to edit articles in these areas which are not sources of controversy.

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 17:52, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
2. James F. (talk) 19:46, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
3. Kelly Martin (talk) 17:59, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
4. ➥the Epopt 23:35, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
5. Raul654 19:34, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

6) SchmuckyTheCat (talk · contribs) is placed on Wikipedia:Probation for one year. This means that any administrator, in the exercise of their judgement for reasonable cause, documented in a section of this decision, may ban them from any article which relates to China which they disrupt by inappropriate editing. SchmuckyTheCat must be notified on their talk page of any bans and a note must also placed on WP:AN/I. They may post suggestions on the talk page of any article they are banned from editing. This remedy is crafted to permit SchmuckyTheCat continuing to edit articles in these areas which are not sources of controversy.

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 17:52, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
2. James F. (talk) 19:46, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
3. Kelly Martin (talk) 17:59, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
4. ➥the Epopt 23:35, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
5. Raul654 19:34, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

1) Should a Wikipedia administrator feel it necessary that those placed on probation in this matter be banned from an article where they are engaged in edit warring, removal of sourced material, POV reorganizations of the article or any other activity which the user considers disruptive they shall place a template {{[user name] banned}} at the top of the talk page of the article and notify Instantnood on their talk page. The template shall include the ending date of the ban (one year from this decision) and a link to Wikipedia:Probation. The template may be removed by any one at the end of the ban. See Wikipedia:Probation

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 16:26, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
2. James F. (talk) 19:46, 25 October 2005 (UTC) &c. for the others.[reply]
3. Kelly Martin (talk) 17:59, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
4. ➥the Epopt 23:37, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
5. Raul654 19:34, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

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. I believe everything has passed. Raul654 19:35, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
2. Fred Bauder 21:05, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
3. ➥the Epopt 23:06, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
4. I'm satisfied. Kelly Martin (talk) 17:11, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
5. Close. James F. (talk) 18:16, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Closed. James F. (talk) 19:06, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• <user name> banned from <name of article> by <adminstrator's name and date> for <period of time>
• <Here place a summary of the basis for the ban. A few diffs showing what you consider disruptive editing by the user would be helpful, both for the understanding of the user and others and to remind you should your ban be challenged.>