Revision as of 00:58, 31 December 2006

This is a page for working on Arbitration decisions. It provides for suggestions by Arbitrators and other users and for comment by arbitrators, the parties and others. After the analysis of /Evidence here and development of proposed principles, findings of fact, and remedies, Arbitrators will vote at /Proposed decision. Anyone who edits should sign all suggestions and comments. Arbitrators will place proposed items they have confidence in on /Proposed decision.

Motions and requests by the parties

Motion for quick close

1) Husnock has stated that he no longer opposes remaining de-sysoped. As such, I would encourage a 'speedy close' which ratifies the de-sysoping (addendum) and limits Husnock to one account (/addendum). While various inter-related issues have been raised here and on the evidence page I believe these other items are comparatively minor and can be handled by the community. Since Husnock indicates he will be providing no evidence this would have to be done by another party on his behalf or potential mitigation might be left out. --CBD 17:11, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

This works for me. If this arbitration is constrained to recent events, desysopping seems appropriate and agreed upon by all parties and no other remedies seem needed. If we're to have other remedies, I think we'd have to open this arbitration up to review everything Husnock has done. I don't see that as a productive use of our time. --Durin 17:16, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I can see the pragmatic benefits in this. But I don't consider the underlying issues to be that minor: they seem to be part of the same pattern of behaviour. I was thinking of proposing remedies explicitly restricting this person to one account, and also perhaps some form of caution or probation, to take effect on his return. I do see the problem that he has declined/is unavailable to take part here, but you can't ban me because i quit is a bit of a cheap getaway. Morwen - Talk 17:47, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

• Yes, now that I have reviewed the sockpuppetry evidence I agree that limiting to one account would probably also be a good/uncontroversial idea. I'm just thinking that since parts of the case seem incontrovertible, and will not be contested in any case, that it would be beneficial to skip any waiting periods and deliberation over all the issues and hand down a ruling on the basics. Full deliberation would probably result in some sort of block period and/or other restrictions related to the article and copyright conflicts. However, I believe any further problems in those areas can be handled by normal means without need of an ArbCom ruling. --CBD 12:09, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

• I won't dispute that. Do you want to draft up sockpuppetry principles/findings/remedy? Morwen - Talk 12:17, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

I agree this makes sense under the circumstances, with the understanding that other matters have not been adjudicated one way or the other. (I don't know that all of them are "comparatively minor," but I believe that many of them will be ameliorated or suited to resolution short of ArbCom level after the passage of some time.) As it happens, the ArbCom is in the process right now of setting a record for most cases accepted in a given week, and the newly constituted committee is going to enter the new year with a huge backlog. This makes it all the more helpful if this case can be resolved quickly and on narrow grounds. Newyorkbrad 17:20, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to see what some of the arbitrators say first. When accepting, the wording indicated one or more of them wanted to examine things. I think we should give them a chance to do this. Husnock not presenting evidence is neither here nor there. The case can carry on in his absentia, and he can appeal if he wants to if he returns. Carcharoth 12:45, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. I think a couple of the arbitrators have indicated they are going to have less Wiki-time over the holidays, so things may slow down for a few days anyway. Newyorkbrad 12:58, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

This has been my position from the beginning. It seems pointless to put the boot in under the circumstances; Husnock should just take a Wikibreak and come back when his tour is over. Guy (Help!) 22:48, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed temporary injunctions

Ratification of emergency desysopping

1) The action of a Steward in desysopping User:Husnock on an emergency basis is ratified and confirmed by the en:wiki Arbitration Committee. Husnock's administrator access shall remain suspended during the pendency of this case. The question of permanent desysopping will be addressed in the final decision. In light of Husnock's statement (see /Evidence talkpage) that he formally relinquishes his administrator rights, the desysopping is finalized.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Involuntary desysopping can ordinarily be directed only by ArbCom but can be implemented by a Steward where, as here, an emergency is found to exist. With the immediate emergency having passed, the Arbitration Committee now has the opportunity to consider the issue and to ratify the action taken, which was appropriate. Under the circumstances, Husnock's administrator status should remain suspended during the case and until the serious issues raised in the request for arbitration and comments thereon are addressed. The question of permanent desysopping should be decided in the final decision, unless Husnock agrees to resign his adminship, which would certainly be in his and the community's best interests. Newyorkbrad 04:50, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I believe that this is a good proposal, to affirm the Committee's agreement with the original desysopping, while not yet making a decision on whether it is intended to be permanent. Ral315 (talk) 07:40, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

• Support this, I see no reason to beat Husnock over the head with this and I'd hope that any endorsement of desysopping would be with the explicit rider that this is without prejudice to re-application. No big deal, right? Guy (Help!) 11:07, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Proposal updated in light of Husnock's statement. With regard to the question of reapplication, I believe anyone desysopped can reapply at RfA unless otherwise explicitly provided in the final decision. Newyorkbrad 13:45, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Questions to the parties

Proposed final decision

Proposed principles

User pages are not for denouncing other users

1) Displaying negative comments about other Misplaced Pages contributors on your user page is contrary to Misplaced Pages's civility policies, creates an unnecessarily hostile environment, may constitute harassment, and is therefore strongly discouraged.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. --CBD 13:40, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Edit warring on user pages is discouraged

2) Users are generally allowed to control the content of their user page and thus edit warring over such is strongly discouraged. If potentially improper or objectionable material is displayed there should be a community discussion of the issues with protection of the page if necessary to prevent edit warring.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. --CBD 13:40, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

A potentially dangerous proposal- it should be phrased in such a way that removing a fair-use image from a user page is not discouraged, and users in violation of this and other policies cannot try to hide behind this. Ral315 (talk) 08:22, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Admin passwords should be kept secure

3) Admins should not share their Misplaced Pages passwords with others. Doing so risks exposing Misplaced Pages to considerable disruption and thus may result in emergency de-sysoping.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. --CBD 15:03, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Admins should not unblock themselves

4) Administrators who have been blocked for purported violations must not remove the block themselves even if they believe it was clearly improper. See Misplaced Pages:Unblocking#Unblocking.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. --CBD 15:13, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Have added link to policy. Suggest we do this for all these principles. Morwen - Talk 15:17, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Disputed unsourced material can and should be removed

5) If (a) material in an article is disputed, and (b) it is also unsourced, then it can and should be removed, and should not be restored without adequate sourcing. See Misplaced Pages:Verifiability#Burden_of_evidence, which states that the burden of evidence is on the users adding or restoring information

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Based in policy. This must have been a principle established before, perhaps we could use a stock wording instead? Morwen - Talk 15:25, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Nearly every policy has been cited in some case somewhere before. Some old language is cataloged at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration policy/Past decisions but it is not kept up to date. Thatcher131 04:44, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Template

1) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

A content dispute escalated

1) The underlying problem has its roots in a series of content disputes in respect of Star Trek subjects (e.g. Starfleet Security (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) , , Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Starfleet alternate ranks and insignia (2nd nomination)). The disputes escalated for various reasons. The fact of Husnock being on active service is cited as a factor.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed Guy (Help!) 11:13, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Husnock made regrettable comments

2) During this dispute, Husnock made comments which are regrettable, at least one of which could justly be interpreted as a credible threat of harm . Morwen clearly felt threatened . After a lengthy and often terse series of exchanges on the admin noticeboard, Husnock made this series of comments which several admins considered to be an acceptance that the comments were inappropriate.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed Guy (Help!) 11:24, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Husnock has added back disputed material without sourcing it

3) In edits such as and , Husnock adds back material which had been removed by other editors as unsourced and/or untrue.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Morwen - Talk 15:32, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Could we make that unsourced and/or untrue please? Guy (Help!)

Done. Intent was to imply that this was't us going around deleting information we believe to be true just because it wasn't sourced, but that we believe the information to be actually false. Morwen - Talk 13:34, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Sure. But we need to be fair and accurate; removal does not depend on being untrue, it could be true, disputed and uncited, it can still be removed. As to what constitutes "truth", it's a fictional concept, and the edit warring over it strikes me as utterly absurd, but there you go :-) Guy (Help!) 14:36, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Husnock unblocked himself

4) At 04:56, 18 December 2006, Thebainer (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) blocked Husnock for one month for disruption. Husnock unblocked himself 6 minutes later, citing pure abuse of admin powers by User:Thebainer. Some of the subsequent discussion questioned the appropriateness and/or length of the block but more of the discussion was critical of the self-unblocking.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. --CBD 11:34, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

For clarity, suggest changing "validity" to "appropriateness and/or length". Newyorkbrad 13:56, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Rewritten. I think the "subsequent discussion" is probably unnecessary and irrelevant. There never was a serious discussion of Thebainer's block since Husnock had already unblocked himself. The fact that he might/probably/could have been unblocked much earlier ceased to matter when he unblocked himself. Thatcher131 05:01, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Husnock shared his password

5) According to Husnock, he shared his password with 'Dan Rappaport' so that the latter could write a message in support of Husnock.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. --CBD 11:34, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Husnock claims to have helped Dan Rappaport evade a block

6) Both Husnock and Dan Rappaport have stated that Husnock shared his password so that Rappaport could get around a block on an IP address for their location. However, that block was placed specifically because of personal attacks made by Dan Rappaport.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. --CBD 11:34, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

We might also note that the "PS I'm using Husnock's password" bit was added only after the original statement, which would also be consistent with Husnock adding the comment himself, but having forgotten to log off, then realising his error and posting an explanation (and incidentally continuing to dig a hole). If the IP for Dan-posting-as-Husnock is different to Husnock this would corroborate the story (it it is the same, it proves nothing, though). Morwen - Talk 13:53, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure we have any proof that the two are truly different individuals. Guy (Help!) 14:36, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

• I think we have to presume they are and have that disproved rather than presume they are the same and find proof they aren't. --Durin 16:30, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I wasn't sure if this should be written as 'true' or not... but it isn't like he'd look better if this didn't really happen. If there is no 'Dan Rappaport' then Husnock himself was making personal attacks on Morwen, sockpuppeting around a block, et cetera. I've reworded the title as a 'claim', but I don't think it makes much difference whether it is true. --CBD 16:44, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

I don't want to get involved in this arbitration (which is why I didn't log in) but the ip situation in Dubai and Abu Dhabi needs to be looked at since there are several permanent blocks for anonymous ip address vandalism preventing anyone editing on those ip addresses, even registered users, as well as the creation of new accounts. It is very possible that the person mentioned above really couldn't create an account if he was in one of the ip ranges that is not working due to the auto-blocks. Perhaps this is something to consider and also to be corrected not only for this case but the broader issue for other wikipedia users in the region. I read a bit more about the case and also suggest far less publicity about ip address traces. From what I gather, it has been published now several times where the parties in this dispute are writing from, to include actual e-mail addresses and city locations. That is just not a good idea. Thank you for your time. -213.42.21.79 07:57, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, um, you mention the cities there yourself. I don't see any email addresses anywhere. Morwen - Talk 10:22, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

The problem with the whole 'Dan Rappaport evaded the block because the whole city was sealed off' argument is that 'Dan Rappaport' was the reason the whole city was blocked. It might work as some form of mitigation for an innocent third party, but not for the actual target of the block. As to release of info, yes that should generally be avoided but given that there were edits made from the IP address and/or identifying their location the 'cat was out of the bag' well before anyone tried to sort out how many of these people were sockpuppets. --CBD 11:57, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Husnock is a long-standing, valued contributor

7) Husnock (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Husnock's first edit was in April 2004. In the two and a half years since, he has made nearly 13,000 edits covering nearly 4,000 articles, of which over 8,000 are in mainspace, and 1,500 in Image space (). He was sysopped in January 2006. His main areas of contribution have been military ranks and insignia (US, but other nationalities as well, present day and historical) and science-fiction subjects, often also focusing on ranks and insignia. Most of these edits are entirely uncontroversial. In real life Husnock is a Lieutenant in the US Naval Reserve, stated to be currently on active service in the Gulf.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

This gets my non-vote. Morwen - Talk 15:24, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I think this potentially opens the doors to a flood of debate. Husnock has been involved in a number of disputes. It is possible that a number of people might object to this finding, and create something of a witch hunt against Husnock. I think this ArbCom case needs to be restricted to Husnock's actions in regards to his release of the password to his account, being blocked, his unblocking of himself, and closely related actions alone. I don't think we need to rehash a large number of past events to gain an equitable solution that benefits the project. This arbitration should not be treated as a full review of Husnock, unless we open the door to all of the past disputes and air out every piece of dirty laundry there is. I don't think anyone wants that, least of all Husnock. This finding is counterproductive. --Durin 16:26, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

My view is that Husnock-on-duty is subject to stresses not felt by Husnock-at-home, and this has impacted his interactions with other Wikipedians and his style of editing. I believe there is a crucial difference between this and irredeemable POV warriors. Guy (Help!) 22:51, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

In fairness, we should note this as a finding of fact. I don't think anybody wants to hound Husnock out of the project. Guy (Help!) 15:03, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I have no problem with an acknowledgement of the valuable aspects of his on-wiki contributions; I have made similar proposals in other cases (Giano, Konstable). The fact of his on-duty status also is relevant to the case to an extent and can reasonably be included; his branch of service and military rank are not relevant. Newyorkbrad 16:54, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Agree with Newyorkbrad; I also can't see how his main areas of contribution are relevant to this case (or even to his status as a valued contributor- 13,000 edits in military/science-fiction is the exact same as 13,000 edits in Pokemon). Ral315 (talk) 08:27, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not saying it is different, only stating the facts. Guy (Help!) 21:03, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I concur with Durin above. I have the feeling that this proposal might open up all of Husnock's contributions, disputes, discussion, etc. to scrutiny by ArbCom, contributors, and especially those who may have a vendetta against Husnock, which goes beyond the scope of this case. --physicq (c) 01:08, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Husnock has misused sockpuppets

8) There is strong evidence that CamelCommodore, 'Dan Rappaport', and/or unsigned IP edits were sockpuppets of Husnock. As these multiple accounts have acted in support of each other and continued to edit when one or more of them were blocked this would constitute abuse of multiple accounts.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. --CBD 12:07, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {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.

Husnock is desysopped

1) Husnock's sysop status was removed as an emergency measure and will not be returned by the ArbCom. Husnock may submit a Request for adminship at any time.

1a) The emergency desysopping of Husnock is ratified, without prejudice to his re-applying for adminship via a Request for adminship

1b) The emergency desysopping of Husnock is ratified. Because the security of Husnock's account is in question, he cannot apply for adminship under his current account.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. I'm usually against desysoping without clear warnings, but in this case it seems the only option following a profound loss of trust. --CBD 15:25, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

• (1a) works for me. Husnock's agreed to it as well, so it seems a moot point. --Durin 16:28, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

• I didn't think he had agreed to it as his original statement indicated that he wanted the sysop access back. However, now that I look around I see that on Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for arbitration/Husnock/Evidence he changed his mind about that. As such, I think we can probably wrap this up quickly. --CBD 16:57, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Slightly different wording 1a proposed; ArbCom would not, I think, normally unilaterally reinstate adminship, and actually what we're asking is that they endorse the action, as well as not ruling out future re-application. Guy (Help!) 14:41, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

This is somewhat in flux. In the pedo userbox wars Arbcom chose the timetable for restoration of various editors' adminships. More recently they have followed the principle that ex-admins have to go through a new RFA. Both 1 and 1A are in line with recent decisions; it's just a matter of which language you prefer. Thatcher131 04:49, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I've proposed 1b. Given that the account may or may not be compromised, and may still be compromised, or possibly taken over by another user other than Husnock, I feel that the situation is the same, and he should not be able to regain adminship. Ral315 (talk) 08:18, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Self-unblocking

2) Developers are encouraged to amend mediawiki so that it is no longer possible for administrators to unblock themselves after a block imposed by a different administrator.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. If you shouldn't do this, makes it a great deal easier to comply if you can't. Would save a lot of good editors from getting into trouble. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 19:10, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

How about just making it you read the policy about self-unblocking and then click "yes, unblock myself anyway"? Morwen - Talk 19:39, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Let's just stick to aversion therapy, David. This is a slippery slope, and an existential brainfuck. If we make adminship idiot-proof, the number of idiots per capita will approach one. If better idiots are built, triggering the closure of newly identified "avenues for abuse", the actual meaning of adminship will approach zero. If an RFA candidate no longer needs to be trustworthy (or even able to find his own ass), what's left to evaluate? Edit count, I guess. —freak(talk) 21:02, Dec. 21, 2006 (UTC)

It's an interesting idea but I doubt if the arbitrators will act on it. Thatcher131 04:50, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I thought I'd been unmistakably clear that this proposed remedy sucks. —freak(talk) 22:48, Dec. 22, 2006 (UTC)

Disagree, if we can't trust admins to act sensibly with their tools, then then shouldn't be admins in the first place. The unblock page already says immediately above the edit box/buttons "If you have been blocked, you must not unblock yourself even if you believe the block is unfair, inappropriate, or in error. Instead, contact another administrator through e-mail, IRC, the mailing list, or by leaving a note on your talk page. " --pgk 19:46, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

There's a potential security risk involved in eliminating the technical ability of an admin to unblock himself or herself. If an admin account were ever to be compromised and a bot run to en masse block admin accounts, cleanup would be substantially more difficult without that technical ability being there. At any rate, it's probably a bad idea for ArbCom to be making technical recomendations. BigDT 05:55, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Not to mention the case (which happens relatively often) of an administrator caught by an autoblock. If we can trust them to block or unblock any other user, we should be able to trust them to block themselves. Ral315 (talk) 08:14, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Agree with all the above. If an admin wants to unblock themselves without good reason, they know what will happen. Guy (Help!) 10:43, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

The point is it happens even when there is good reason. Even when the block is blatantly out of process. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 00:58, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

As a developer, I don't think this is an arbcom matter. This discussion should be on bugzilla where it belongs. For the record, I am averse to this proposal, and fairly sceptical of the English Misplaced Pages Arbitration Committee's jurisdiction to tell the MediaWiki developers what to implement. For those unaware of this, English Misplaced Pages is not actually the only wiki that uses the MediaWiki software. FYI, there are actually over seven hundred wikis on Wikimedia alone. — Werdna talk 11:48, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

It could be done as an extension I suppose, but I would not be supportive of it. We should trust out sysops with their tools, or they shouldn't have them. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 15:38, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

There is precedent from the Giano case that ArbCom can't direct developers to do anything (recognized in the wording of the proposal here, "developers are encouraged"). I don't believe this would have a high developer priority given everything else they are working on and the general good sense of admins. Newyorkbrad 16:35, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

And the "encouragement" was summarily ignored, on the grounds that it was essentially useless tampering-with of logs for the benefit of ego. Developers are not under the jurisdiction of English Misplaced Pages's arbitration committee, nor is English Misplaced Pages the only place where MediaWiki is used. We've had the discussion on forbidding self-unblocking for a while, now, and it's an explicit exception in the software (that is, we've specifically not included block checks in block/unblock operations). — Werdna talk 22:19, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Husnock is limited to one account

3) Husnock must identify a single account which he will edit from. Any additional accounts which are uncovered will be indefinitely blocked.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. --CBD 12:11, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {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

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {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: