Revision as of 21:40, 17 June 2010

Misplaced Pages Arbitration
About arbitrationTalk Arbitration policy (CU/OS) Guide to arbitration Noticeboard + Talk Search archived proceedings Ban appealsReport
Open proceedings All open requests Case requests Clarification and Amendment requests Arbitrator motion requests Enforcement requests
Active sanctions Contentious topics (Log) General sanctions Editor sanctions
Arbitration Committee Discuss+ Contact Members Procedures ElectionsTalk History Clerks+ Talk Clerk procedures Conflict of interest reports
Audit Talk StatisticsTalk Reports (pre-2016)
Track related changes
v t e

This is a page for working on Arbitration decisions. The Arbitrators, parties to the case, and other editors may draft proposals and post them to this page for review and comments. Proposals may include proposed general principles, findings of fact, remedies, and enforcement provisions—the same format as is used in Arbitration Committee decisions. The bottom of the page may be used for overall analysis of the /Evidence and for general discussion of the case.

Any user may edit this workshop page. Please sign all suggestions and comments. Arbitrators will place proposed items they believe should be part of the final decision on the /Proposed decision page, which only Arbitrators and clerks may edit, for voting, clarification as well as implementation purposes.

In addition to the usual guidelines for arbitration cases, the following procedures apply to this case:

• The case will be opened within 24 hours after the posting of these guidelines.
• The drafting arbitrators will be Newyorkbrad, Rlevse, and Risker. The arbitration clerk for the case will be Amorymeltzer, but all the active arbitration clerks are asked to assist with this case as needed.
• The title of the case will be Climate change. Participants are asked to bear in mind that case titles are chosen for administrative convenience and do not reflect any prejudgment on the scope or outcome of the case.
• Notice of the opening of the case will be given to all editors who were named as parties in the request for arbitration, all editors who commented on the request, and all editors who commented on either of the two pending related requests ("Sock Puppet Standards of Evidence" and "Stephan Schulz and Lar"). If any other editor later becomes a potential subject of the case, such as by being mentioned extensively in evidence or named in a workshop proposal, a notice should also be given to that editor at that time.
• The issues raised in the "Sock Puppet Standards of Evidence" and "Stephan Schulz and Lar" requests may be raised and addressed in evidence in this case if (but only if) they have not been resolved by other means.
• Preparation of a formal list of "parties to the case" will not be required. In previous cases of this complexity, extensive discussion about who is or is not or should be or should not be a party has often become the focus of controversy, sometimes to the detriment of the parties' focusing on the merits of the case itself. As long as all editors whose conduct is being reviewed are notified of the case, and the decision makes it clear which editors are affected by any sanctions, it does not ultimately matter whether a given editor was formally named as a "party" or not.
• Within five days from the opening of the case (i.e. by 00:28, 18 June 2010 (UTC)), participants are asked to provide a listing of the sub-issues that they believe should be addressed in the committee's decision. This should be done in a section of the Workshop page designated for that purpose. Each issue should be set forth in as a one-sentence, neutrally worded question—for example:
  • "Should User:X be sanctioned for tendentious editing on Article:Y"?
  • "Has User:Foo made personal attacks on editors of Article:Z?"
  • "Did Administrator:Bar violate the ABC policy on (date)?"
  • "Should the current community probation on Global Warming articles by modified by (suggested change)?"

The committee will not be obliged to address all the identified sub-issues in its decision, but having the questions identified should help focus the evidence and workshop proposals.

• All evidence should be posted within 15 days from the opening of the case (i.e. by 00:28, 28 June 2010 (UTC)). The drafters will seek to move the case to arbitrator workshop proposals and/or a proposed decision within a reasonable time thereafter, bearing in mind the need for the committee to examine what will presumably be a very considerable body of evidence.
• Participants are urgently requested to keep their evidence and workshop proposals as concise as reasonably possible.
• The length limitation on evidence submissions is to be enforced in a flexible manner to maximize the value of each user's evidence to the arbitrators. Users who submit overlength diatribes or repetitious presentations will be asked by the clerks to pare them. On the other hand, the word limit should preferably not be enforced in a way that hampers the reader's ability to evaluate the evidence. For example, an editor may present evidence in a form such as "event A occurred and then event B occurred , which led to event C , followed by a personal attack , and an uncivil comment , resulting in a block , an unblock , and an ANI discussion ." It sometimes happens that the editor is asked to shorten his or her evidence, and it is refactored to read something like "there was a dispute about a block ." This does not make life easier for the arbitrators who have to study all the evidence. Editors should take this into account before complaining that other editors' sections are too long.
• All participants are expected to abide by the general guideline for Conduct on arbitration pages, which states:

  The pages associated with Arbitration cases are primarily intended to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at a fair, well-informed, and expeditious resolution of each case. Participation by editors who present good-faith statements, evidence, and workshop proposals is appreciated. While allowance is made for the fact that parties and other interested editors may have strong feelings about the subject-matters of their dispute, appropriate decorum should be maintained on these pages. Incivility, personal attacks, and strident rhetoric should be avoided in Arbitration as in all other areas of Misplaced Pages.

• Until this case is finally decided, the existing community sanctions and procedures for Climate change and Global warming articles remain in full effect, and editors on these articles are expected to be on their best behavior.
• Any arbitrator, clerk, or other uninvolved administrator is authorized to block, page-ban, or otherwise appropriately sanction any participant in this case whose conduct on the case pages departs repeatedly or severely from appropriate standards of decorum. Except in truly egregious cases, a warning will first be given with a citation to this notice. (We hope that it will never be necessary to invoke this paragraph.)
• This procedural notice shall be copied at the top of the evidence and workshop pages. Any questions about these procedures may be asked in a designated section of the workshop talkpage.
• After this case is closed, editors will be asked to comment on whether any of the procedures listed above should be made standard practice for all future cases, or for future complex cases.

Motions and requests by the parties

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

3)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed temporary injunctions

GoRight unblock

1) Fast tract request, GoRight (talk · contribs) be granted an injunction and probation to participate in this case. He was banned during the sanctions, for too many enforcement request, and his views on the sanctions are highly relevant. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 23:17, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Er, he was not "banned for too many enforcement requests". He was initially blocked indefinitely by 2/0 for a variety of long-term behavioral issues. He was conditionally unblocked by Trusilver (talk · contribs), in the interest of a last chance. However, Trusilver became disheartened at GoRight's continued problematic behavior and brought the matter back to AN/I here. As you can see, the thread was closed in favor of a community ban; GoRight appealed to the Ban Appeals Subcommittee, and received this reply.

GoRight's participation in various dispute-resolution forums was broadly problematic, and in fact played a major role in his ban. Given that he's been a net negative in dispute resolution (particularly on climate change), I don't see what would be gained by inviting his participation here. MastCell  23:49, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Problematic, in that he found himself in a constant state of appeal after he would try to get folks to look at wikipidia principals. Instead, they tossed out the foundation with the rules and banned him. Perhaps I may be expecting that folks will respect a principled argument in ArcCom. After all, there are scientists with Ph.Ds participating. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 05:07, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Template

2)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

3)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

4)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Questions to the parties

Sub-issues to be addressed

As requested, please list your concise, one-sentence, neutrally worded question(s) here

Suggested topic(s) by LessHeard vanU

1) Is the scientific communities consensus regarding Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW), as evidenced by reliable sources, the encyclopedic neutral point of view? 00:45, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

2) In determining NPOV should the fact and content of claims denying or skeptic toward AGW be weighed by their prominence in general media reliable sources, irrespective of it being a minority and challenged viewpoint within the scientific community or not being made from a sustainable scientific basis? 00:51, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

3) Have some editors who subscribe to the scientific consensus regarding AGW acted in such a manner to restrict viewpoints outside of that consensus from being represented in the main articles, contrary to WP:DUE? 20:45, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

4) Is there evidence of a concerted effort, including off site media, to diminish or deprecate the scientific consensus presented within AGW articles, contrary to WP:DUE and WP:V? 20:50, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

5) Are the interactions between contributors who edit toward the scientific consensus and those who edit in a manner to more widely represent the AGW denial or skeptic viewpoint generally in accordance with the preferred WP policies of consensus through respectful discussion and use of established methods of dispute resolution, or more example battlefield mentality? 20:58, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

6) Is the widely (but not universally) adopted practice of seeking consensus between uninvolved administrators at the AE/CC/Enforcement Requests page appropriate? 10:34, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Issues by Hipocrite

1) When evaluating the prominence of a scientific argument, what is the appropriate weight given to various media types?

2) How are new, single-purpose accounts to be dealt-with in the area?

3) Are all editors appropriately following sourcing policies?

4) Are all adminstraotors appropraitely following involvement standards?

5) Are current involvement standards appropraite?

Sub-issues suggested by JohnWBarber

1) Should the current community probation on Global Warming articles be modified by having the Arbitration Committee appoint the administrators who would deliberate on complaints at the WP:GSCCRE page?

2) If the Arbitration Committee decides to appoint administrators to deliberate on complaints at the WP:GSCCRE page, should it ask the community in a year's time to suggest to ArbCom whether WP:GSCC is still needed in any form, and if so, whether that new, ArbCom-appointed set-up should be continued or revert back to the present set-up, and in either case, whether it should be modified in other ways?

3) Should User:William M. Connolley be sanctioned for ongoing incivility, assumptions of bad faith and personal attacks?

4) Should User:Kim Dabelstein Petersen be sanctioned for tendentious editing, WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT behavior and WP:BLP violations on climate change articles?

5) Should User:Jehochman be sanctioned for assumptions of bad faith, WP:BATTLEFIELD-like behavior and personal attacks on the WP:GSCCRE page at "Request concerning JohnWBarber" (filed March 3), or should behavioral violations be tolerated when administrators are committing them in the course of commenting on a situation?

6) Should User:Franamax be sanctioned for assumptions of bad faith, WP:BATTLEFIELD-like behavior and personal attacks on the WP:GSCCRE page at "Request concerning JohnWBarber" (filed March 3), or should behavioral violations be tolerated when administrators are committing them in the course of commenting on a situation?

7} Has User:Polargeo been disruptive on various pages related to climate change articles, particularly WP:GSCCRE and its talk page?

8) Should User:Hipocrite be sanctioned for excessive and frequent incivility?

Suggested question by Tryptofish

1) Should the Committee provide a definition of "uninvolved administrator", for purposes of aiding Arbitration Enforcement in the future? --17:22, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Suggested issues to examine by Cla68

1) Has there been any extended abuse of BLP articles by a group of established editors, including one or more administrators?

2) Have any established editors, including one or more administrators, employed incivility including personal attacks, bullying, baiting, sarcasm, and insults over an extended period of time on the talk pages of any of the climate change articles and, if so, did the behavior result in decreased cooperation, collaboration, and compromise in expanding or improving the content of those articles?

4) Have any established editors, including one or more administrators, displayed contempt, derision, or indifference towards Misplaced Pages's policies, guidelines, and/or article-improvement forums such as WP:Good Article or WP:Featured Article?

5) Have any established editors, including one or more administrators, used delaying tactics in article talk page discussions including non sequiturs, wikilawyering, and revert warring to impede addition of new content to any climate change articles?

6) Have any established editors who may have a conflict of interest, such as having a close personal or professional relationship with BLP subjects involved with climate change controversies, edited climate change articles in a way that could be interpreted as a violation of NPOV?

Suggested issues to examine by Lar

1) Should the Scientific point of view be used in the GW/CC area instead of NPOV?

2a) Does article goodness (and scientific accuracy) excuse poor editing behavior to the point that the ends justify the means, or does it matter what the editing process to get the articles to that state was?

2b)Further, is Global Warming such a dire threat to mankind that Misplaced Pages should take a position on it or at least modify normal standards to ensure that the articles adhere to generally accepted scientific consensus at all times and in all ways?

3a) Should the definition of "uninvolved" as used in the CC/RE pages be modified to conform to the generally accepted definition elsewhere? (taking into account editing in the general area as well as editor interaction)

3b) If so, should this modification also apply to other enforcement areas beyond CC/RE or is CC/RE a special case?

4) Are the following editors "uninvolved"? (list to be supplied later)

5a) Has the "Duck test" been broadened inappropriately?

5b) Is the "Duck test" routinely misapplied?

6) Is the "Scibaby threat" so dire that normal standards of evidence, investigation, and process, including allowing the accused some chance to speak for themselves, should not be used, or can normal processes deal with Scibaby and other high volume sockpuppets?

Submitted for consideration. ++Lar: t/c 13:17, 14 June 2010 (UTC) ... and revised. ++Lar: t/c 19:21, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Suggested issues to examine by Polargeo

1) Should the fact that an admin has not edited a Climate Change article give them carte blanche to deal with an editor in this area no matter what the admin's past history with the editor may be? Polargeo (talk) 14:21, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Suggested Issues to examine by ATren

1. Is it appropriate for editors with a strong POV to be editing the biographies of people with whom they disagree?
2. Is it appropriate for editors to add blog-sourced criticism to BLPs, and in particular, when the editors have prior association with those blogs?
3. Is the disruption caused by individual Scibaby socks so severe that we are willing to block on little or no evidence (i.e. less than 25 non-vandalism edits, no checkuser support)?
4. Has the zeal of a small group of long term editors, protecting against real or presumed socks, caused a de-facto banning of opposing views in this topic area?
5. Should editors be held to a basic standard of civility?
6. Does truth supercede verifiability?

ATren (talk) 14:39, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Issues suggested by Stephan Schulz

1) Is climate change a field in which "expertise is irrelevant", because Misplaced Pages only "reflects what reliable sources say" or is climate change a large, complex scientific topic in which a general understanding is necessary to achieve due weight?

2) How can the community deal with high-volume sophisticated socking without causing editor burn-out?

3) Should participation in off-wiki discussions be taken into account when determining good faith and civility? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:26, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

4) Is there a concerted off-wiki attempt to influence on-wiki content, and, if yes, how should the community handle it?

5) Is there a off-wiki campaign targeting certain Misplaced Pages users, and, if yes, how should the community handle it?

6) Per "everything should be as simple as possible, but no simpler", is the requirement that each issue should be set forth in as a one-sentence, neutrally worded question something that should be strictly enforced or would we rather not force our competent editors to use their immense grammatical skills and the English language's ability to connect several sentences with conjunctions to write one long and convoluted sentence where two or three short ones would have been simpler and clearer? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:25, 14 June 2010 (UTC) (last updated 08:38, 17 June 2010 (UTC))

Issues suggested by ZuluPapa5

1) Should William M. Connolley be topic banned for uncivil disruptions?

2) Should Stephan Schulz be admonished for enabling William M. Connolley's problematic behavior?

3) Was Lar's May 18, 2010 block for 1 hr to William M. Connolley for "Disruptive Editing" for valid and fair reasons?

4) Should GoRight Request for Arbitration, which was closed and lead to the Climate change probation, be reopened in this case?

-- Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 19:06, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

-- Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 00:03, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

-- Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 18:45, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

--Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 05:42, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Issues suggested by William M. Connolley

1) Are wikipedia's science-of-climate-change articles (headed by global warming) generally held in high or low regard externally? 21:38, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

2) Should editors be held to a basic standard of usefulness? 21:54, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

3) Has the Cl Ch probation unnecessarily tagged large numbers of non-controversial pages? William M. Connolley (talk) 10:30, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

William M. Connolley (talk) 21:54, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Issues suggested by Count Iblis

1) Should the unofficial but de-facto WP:SPOV policy that editors stick to on almost all science related articles, including the global warming related articles, be made official (possibly after it is rewritten by the Arbitrators), for at least the global warming related pages, in order to reduce tensions?

2) Do we need new civility rules to prevent sniping at experts while allowing people to utter justified criticism at each other, so that the experts don't run away?

3) Is there a self-selection effect that contributes to and amplifies problems? I.e. does the Kindergarten like nature of many of the disputes attract editors who are most at ease in such a climate?

4) Has enforcing civility rules without addressing the core problems made things worse?

5) Do we need periodic external peer review by climate science experts to see if the procedures the editors (and possibly Arbitrators) decide on, do indeed lead to high quality articles?

6) Do we need to have a separate list for reliable sources for the climate change area, given that so much nonsense has been published in sources that are reliable in other respects? For this, do we need to examine the conduct of all the commonly used sources in Misplaced Pages, to see if proper editorial policies are followed in case of news reporting on climate change (e.g. when a news report has been debunked, the source retracts the report)?

Count Iblis (talk) 19:36, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Issue suggested by Heyitspeter

1. Do the arbitrators believe that WP:SPOV should be followed as it is written currently?
2. Does WP:SPOV contradict WP:V?
3. How do WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE apply to articles related to global warming?
4. With respect to WP:RS, how should we approach sources that stem from scientists who self-describe or are described as skeptics of anthropogenic global warming?
5. How should we approach sources that stem from nonscientists who self-describe or are described as skeptics of anthropogenic global warming?
6. Where reliable sources like the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal contradict scientists in the field (e.g.), should scientific sources be included at the expense of the other reliable sources?

Issues suggested by TheGoodLocust

1. What/who is the source of the problem?
2. How long has this problem been going on?
3. Have sanctions changed the behavior of the problem contributors?
4. Have the problem contributors driven away both experienced and new editors from wikipedia?
5. Has a culture been created in the topic area that promotes incivility and a battleground mentality?
6. Which side on the debate has benefited from that culture?
7. If the probation has not changed the culture in the area, then what can cure it?
8. How do we deal with obstructive practices by a tight group of editors who show up at esoteric articles to defend each other?
9. Is WP:MEAT being properly applied to long-term contributors in the area?
10. Should all long term SPAs (or nearly SPAs) be checkusered to weed out socking?
11. Is Hipocrite a sockpuppet of William Connolley - his at-work account?
12. Is Hipocrite creating "false flag" socks in order to demonize the opposition and block new editors?
13. Would sanctioning editors for wikilawyering help the situation?
14. Should editors be able to extensively source articles to their blogs, ex-blogs or the blogs of their friends?
15. Similarly, should editors be able to extensively source articles to the scientific papers of their friends, while excluding the viewpoints of other scientists?
16. At what point, in % of edits, do revisions, reverts, and removals of other's edits become intentionally obstructive?
17. Should editors with high %'s of such behavior describe themselves and each other as "high quality contributors?"
18. What dispute resolution processes should be used to resolve any conflicts on article content?
19. Would extending the probation to cover content fix obstructionism or codify it?
20. Are the sides accurately described as skeptics vs. non-skeptics?
21. Since the majority of people who oppose the long-term global warming group actually believe in global warming why do they oppose them?
22. And why does the global warming group insist on calling those editors "skeptics" or "scientifically illiterate" if they hold the same beliefs?
23. Does William Connolley have close relationships with certain controversial scientists?
24. Do such relationships motivate him to promote their work and protect their reputations?
25. Have his actions demonstrated such activity (e.g. using wikipedia to increase google page ranking of their websites)?
26. Finally, would topic banning the top editors in the area improve the situation?

Issues suggested by Short Brigade Harvester Boris

1) Are repeated declarations that one wants to "level the playing field" more favorably toward certain editors and less favorably toward others consistent with the role of a neutral and uninvolved administrator?

2) Is the declaration of a specific content position while engaged in enforcement with those editors consistent with the role of a neutral and uninvolved administrator?

3) Are repeated characterizations of editors as a "cabal," "cadre" and similar terms while engaged in enforcement with those editors consistent with the role of a neutral and uninvolved administrator?

4) Are personal insults such as "socially inept" directed toward editors with whom an administrator is engaged in enforcement consistent with the role of a neutral and uninvolved administrator?

5) On articles related to scientific topics, what weight should be given to views that have little or no credibility in the relevant scientific community but are widely discussed in blogs and the popular press?

6) How should Misplaced Pages respond to external criticism? Should the response vary according to the source; e.g., academic evaluations or straight news reporting versus partisan commentary?

7) How should op-eds and similar commentary be used as sources?

8) How should editors deal with unambiguously erroneous information from an otherwise reliable source (e.g., misstating the author of a book)? In particular, may editors deliberately insert such plain factual errors under Misplaced Pages's policy of "verifiability, not truth"?

9) Is global warming primarily a scientific topic that has sociopolitical and economic consequences, or is it primarily a political topic that is to some extent based on science?

Issues suggested by KimDabelsteinPetersen

1) Where does BLP start and stop with regards to professional/scientific controversy?

2) Are comments (by another published expert) on published papers by a scientist considered BLP material? Even when it is critical?

3) Is there a difference between material/content/text placed in a regular article, and a biography, with regards to the materials BLP or non-BLP status?

4) When considering content on different articles with differing amounts of published material both in time and distribution, should there be a set standard for how much neutral/praising/criticising material there is? (both in distribution and length?)

5) If a reference can be shown to be factually incorrect (by using more reliable sources), what consequences does this have for its state of reliability/weight?

6) Do books published by political commentators automatically count as reliable sources to science?

7) If a political advocate writes a book or makes a film about a topic, does the book/film count as opinion or as a general reliable source (to science or otherwise)?

8) When dealing with a top-level summary article on a very large topic, is it considered incivil to point out that discussion and possible inclusion of a "news/blog issue of the day" doesn't belong, but instead should go to a sub-article?

9) Since WP:TALK seems to disallows general discussion on a topic - is it incivil to point this out?

10) What, if any, measures can be taken so that article talkpages do not become soapboxes/forums for the "issue of the day" within a topic-area?

11) Would a welcoming committee consisting of bipartisan editors for a topic-area be useful for catching newbie editors, on their talkpage (pointing out problematic behaviour/editing) before making mistakes ending up in grief?

Template

1) {text of issue 1}

2) {text of issue 2}

Proposed final decision

Proposals by User:X

Proposed principles

Template

1) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed 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.

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposals by User:Y

Proposed principles

Template

1) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed 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.

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposals by User:Z

Proposed principles

Template

1) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed 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.

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Analysis of evidence

Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

General discussion

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others: