This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Mackensen (talk | contribs) at 21:22, 11 March 2007 (→Proposed principles: removing principle per consent of parties). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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 to clarify scope of the RFAr

1) As originally stated this RFAr was to examine InShaneee's block of Worldtraveller, editing as an IP, two months ago and the subsequent ongoing dispute about that block. InShaneee previously unblocking himself (after the blocking admin accidentally unblocked 'InShanee' (s/b three 'E's)) and closing an RFC on himself (after a month of inactivity and discussion with others suggesting it would be ok for him to do so despite his reservations) were subsequently tagged on. There have now also been moves towards including elements of past disputes (circa 6 months ago) with Hypnosadist and A Link to the Past and/or blocks placed by myself and HighInBC last week. I'd like to clarify the scope of the RFAr. If my block is in question then I, and likely the admin who reversed it, should be listed as parties. Ditto for other disputes. Listing only two parties to one particular incident is fine, but then there should not be evidence and proposed motions brought in the back door based on only 'one side' of unrelated events. --CBD 10:09, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

The stuff about InShaneee's other blocks is peripheral but potentially important if it confirms any trends in behaviour. The subsequent blocks by CBDunkerson and HighInBC arose from this dispute and it may be wise to examine them, particularly as InShaneee appeared to be encouraging CBDunkerson to make good his threat to block me. 81.179.115.188 19:38, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

It is important to review blocks made on Worldtraveller as to whether they had a calming effect or not.--MONGO 10:19, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Motion to remove Tony Sidaway from list of parties

1) To the best of my knowledge Tony Sidaway made no comment and had no involvement of any form in this dispute until he decided to list himself as a party after the arbitration case had opened. As the dispute is between myself and InShaneee, and not anything to do with Tony Sidaway, I feel it is inappropriate and unhelpful for him to be listed as a party. 81.179.115.188 19:35, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

For what it's worth, I always make a practice of adding myself as a part to a case in which I give evidence. I think it clarifies the role in which I contribute to the case. I'll remove myself from the list since this seems to be upsetting some people unnecessarily, but ultimately the arbitrators decide who is and who is not a party. --Tony Sidaway 20:24, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

• Tony is here purely and simply as a troll to cause as much trouble as he possibly can. It is truly about time someone told him when to but out and shut up. As none of his friends seem able to to do it: - I will: Piss off out of this, and leave it to those concerned. You have attempted to upset the apple cart for your own nefarious reasons. You are losing credibility. Now just let those concerned sort their own problems out. This is nothing to do with you - OK? Now get lost! Giano 20:51, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed temporary injunctions

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:

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Questions to the parties

Proposed final decision

Proposed principles

Administrators

1) Misplaced Pages administrators are trusted members of the community and are expected to follow Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. Occasional lapses from optimal behavior are acceptable, but consistently poor judgement may result in desysopping. Administrators should in particular avoid actions that are likely to be disruptive. Administrators are not to use their tools in any dispute in which they are directly involved, such as by blocking others with whom they are in a dispute. See Misplaced Pages:Administrators, Misplaced Pages:Blocking policy, and Misplaced Pages:Protection policy.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Yes. --Tony Sidaway 03:48, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. Adapted from Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Seabhcan. Newyorkbrad 03:02, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Should go further as far as blocks of established editors are conserned and even further for blocks of editors who pull FA's on the almost weekly basis. Creating an encyclopedia is the main goal of this project. Those particularly valuable for the contribution towards great content should be protected and provided with the most comfortable working environment. This environment should be the main task of admins. --Irpen 05:48, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

So if you get an article to FA on "the almost weekly basis" then you get more of a free pass than if you only do it once a month, or once a year??? Is that what you actually mean? I certainly agree that established contributors should get more consideration than brand new users, but I'm not sure I'd go farther than that. Thanks for clarifying. Also, what do you think should be done to make the working environment "the most comfortable"? Free drinks? Foot massages? Surely not. I'm not sure what you mean by that either, but perhaps it would be a good topic for an essay somewhere. ++Lar: t/c 13:49, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Policy doesn't provide for any such exemption. Mackensen (talk) 15:00, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

And so the one-note symphony gets played again. Both of you should know that the straw man you're knocking down has nowhere stood. The suggestion is that people who have long experience have long periods of time showing themselves to "play by the rules," and so they do get an additional benefit of the doubt. Those who write FA's "nearly every week" show themselves to be of value to the content, and they show a person who deals with adversity well -- and frankly only someone who hasn't been through FAC wouldn't know how dreadful that process is and how many unreasonable people will speak up and make unmotivated demands. So, a person who writes frequent FA's shows by evidence good temperament, good knowledge of content, and prolonged time without dispute. If there is a sudden block or shriek over that user, it means that something rather extraordinary has happened or that the person making the accusation needs serious investigation. Stop with the dreary "free pass" stuff, please. It's a simpler question: it's inductive logic. Like passing RFA, it shows that a person has been put in some crucible and established some credit. Geogre 20:06, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

One-note symphony? Well... I think we all have our own oxen that we like to gore on a regular basis, actually, but I'll speak out against free-passism whenever I see it pushed forward. Irpen's comment, above, struck me as doing just that, and nothing more (as per his usual rhetoric... factor in some anti IRCism and we'd have about all of what he says). Your comment, on the other hand, about how nasty FAC is, and how it's evidence of some more noble forebearance by the supplicant than the average process around here, is both true (FAC IS nasty, from this outsider's perception anyway, and not something I'd look forward to subjecting any articles that I was the primary author of to without some considerable trepidation (and perhaps a stresstab or two)), and new (That is, it's not been used as a justification before. Before... we always just got "the people writing the encyclopedia deserve special consideration" (as Irpen appears to be saying above). That dog don't hunt, at least not with me.) Thanks for introducing some new rhetoric. I actually agree with you about it, believe it or not.... but I still wonder what you mean when you say "Those who write FA's "nearly every week" show themselves to be of value to the content"... isn't "of value to the content" some sort of statement of worth? ++Lar: t/c 20:40, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Controversial blocks

2) The blocking policy states that blocks against established editors may be seen as controversial "Blocks may be damaging when consensus proves elusive. Examples include: blocks of logged-in users with a substantial history of valid contributions, regardless of the reason for the block"

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed--MONGO 08:34, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

As InShaneee's block was made on a seemingly 'brand new' IP user this principle would apply only to the blocks for harassment and personal attacks placed by myself and HighiInBC. As we were not listed as parties to this RFAr this would seem to be out of scope. As people seem to keep wanting to bring it 'in scope', despite the lack of any significant past 'dispute resolution' efforts in reference to these actions, I will say that I believe my action was entirely proper even by the heightened standards for 'potentially controversial blocks'. I can add evidence to that effect, but will not do so unless this expansion to include myself and HighInBC as 'un-stated parties' is validated. --CBD 09:44, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

One need not be a named party in a case to have their actions reviewed if said actions are part of the case. If actions escalated a bad situation rather than deescalated it, then that should be reviewed.--MONGO 09:51, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

To quote WP:RFAr, "You are required to place a notice on the user talk page of each person against whom you lodge a complaint." Not naming individuals as parties, not giving them talk page notification, but then 'lodging complaints' anyway would thus seem 'poor form' at the least. It's better to be up-front about the scope of the dispute so that evidence on both sides of all issues under review is presented. --CBD 10:20, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry if you see if this as a complaint about you in particular. However, akin to the Giano situation months back, the question of blocking established editors without consensus needs to be ruled on once and for all. Naturally, everyone must follow policy and no one is above it no matter how many great articles they write. But blocking established editors has repeatedly been shown to be more harmful than beneficial to the project overall.--MONGO 10:35, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Then I guess I'll have to add evidence, because the block I placed was not "without consensus" at the time. --CBD 10:46, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

My view is that CBD had the "consensus" of the immediate. Part of checking out a block is allowing time for comment. Given the size of AN/I and how riven it is with "block for personal attack" and the fact that this was an IP address, you need to allow sufficient time for multiple eyes to see. The people already involved will reply immediately: they're watching. The people who are actually third parties are going to be slower. Tony Sidaway concludes that there is a "gang" because a group of people are consistent in their views, above, and thinks there has to be a conspiracy because, over a period of 48-72 hours, people trickled in to oppose. What do we call it when there are 2-3 opinions endorsing in the first 6 hours? What is that? Well, getting input does not mean allowing 2 hours to go past. There was no danger in not blocking. There was no fear that poor Inshaneee was going to quit if there weren't a punitive block. There was no fear that WorldTraveller would feel happy and vindicated and get meaner without a block, and yet you declared consensus immediately and went ahead. That was a mistake. Geogre 20:11, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Geogre said, "and the fact that this was an IP address". It wasn't an IP address. If it were, then the "logged-in users" principle cited above would not apply. I blocked Worldtraveller under that account name. As to 'allowing time for comment'... there were a couple of days worth of comment at the time I made the block. Not '2 hours' as you state. My "mistake" of declaring consensus "immediately" never happened. There was a long comment period. Please familiarize yourself with the facts of the case. --CBD 20:40, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:BLOCK should be rewritten from "logged-in users" to "established editors"...logged in users is vague.--MONGO 20:43, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Courtesy

3) Misplaced Pages users are expected to behave reasonably and calmly in their dealings with other users. Insulting and intimidating other users harms the community by creating a hostile environment. Personal attacks are not acceptable.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. It shouldn't be necessary to make this finding, not with the collective tenure of the participants. Mackensen (talk) 14:48, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Community responsibility

4) Editors who enjoy high standing in the community have a responsibility to comment constructively during disputes, should they decide to comment at all.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. Mackensen (talk) 17:08, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Responsiveness

5) Administrators must be willing and prepared to discuss the reasons for their actions in a timely manner.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. Mackensen (talk) 21:03, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Statements about actions are impersonal

6) Characterizing or criticizing the actions of another editor, even using harsh and disparaging terms or epithets, is not a personal statement and cannot be considered a personal attack.

Comment by Arbitrators:

That's a slippery slope. If I characterize someone's actions as "infantile" or "absurd," then I'm clearly making a statement about the person themselves. This is, to my mind, a false dichtomoy that we need not encourage. That using such language tends to inflame the situation is also important. Mackensen (talk) 18:46, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

This isn't going to pass because it's simply a mechanism for an end-run about the personal attacks policy. --Tony Sidaway 20:09, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

That's what I've been saying. This opens the door to "I would politely like to point out that some would consider your actions of late to be likened to those of a jackass" to be labeled as legitimate criticism. Attack the person's actions, and you're attacking the person. I don't believe there's any disputes where even harsh criticism can't be worded in a respectful manner. --InShaneee 20:50, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I called InShaneee a witless moron. Having had no response whatsoever - not even so much as a 'piss off' - to any of my five requests for his comment, over 25 days, I was pretty exasperated. I apologised for it . Calling him a terrible administrator is something I absolutely stand by and is absolutely not a personal attack. The difference between the two is what this proposal is trying to address and I think it is worth addressing, seeing as HighInBC 'warned' me about incivility for calling InShaneee a terrible administrator. 81.179.115.188 21:11, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. I've seen it suggested, which made me wonder if I had previously made some faulty assumptions about policy. So I'd like some clarification if this is the case or not. Bitnine 18:43, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Frankly, I've always considered this the worst sort of sophistry... 'I didn't say that YOU were a pathetic moronic jackass, I said that your ACTIONS were consistent with those of a pathetic moronic jackass'. Or to quote this case, "By ignoring the question you give me cause to believe you're a witless moron. That's no personal attack, just a statement of belief." It's absurd gamesmanship to 'justify' insults and incivility and, if anything, more deserving of a block. --CBD 19:04, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

CBD, I agree with you on that, and strongly, but you and I both know that civility blocks hardly ever work... At any rate I'd like to see this repudiated and something more along the lines of an opposite to it adopted, per what I think Mackenson is saying... ++Lar: t/c 20:05, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Had I blocked everyone that insulted me with far more egregious comments than were ever made by Worldtraveller, my blocks would have been twice as many as they were. Admins are expected to have thicker skins, and blocking any editor just because he insults you is grounds for desysopping. Administrators should always get a neutral third party to perform blocks against those they are in dispute with. I wonder when the non-writing admins are going to stop harassing those editors who can write. There is a BIG difference between blocking a long standing and excellent contributor than some single purpose POV pusher or troll.--MONGO 20:33, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Personal attacks are harmful to the community

7) While personal attacks rarely damage the quality of encyclopedic material directly, they impair the motivation and ability of editors to go about their work in article space and elsewhere in the manner to which they are accustomed. As a volunteer community where consensus is necessary, civility and a professional level of respect need to be demonstrated by all parties.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. --InShaneee 21:00, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

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:

Template

1) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Worldtraveller has edited from several IP addresses

1) Worldtraveller (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has also edited from 81.178.208.69 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 81.179.115.188 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), and 81.179.150.16 (talk · contribs · WHOIS).

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Just a 'housekeeping' issue since many of the discussions and evidence diff-links involve these IPs. Worldtraveller has acknowledged these so there should be no privacy concern. If I missed any please add them. --CBD 00:11, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Those are all the anon accounts which he has acknowledged as part of this case. He has used at least one other anon account, but I don't believe that IP should be listed here since it was not used as part of this dispute. — MediaMangler 09:11, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

(Withdrawn)

2) In late December, 2006. after several months away from Misplaced Pages, User:Worldtraveller who had little previous expressed interest in the paranormal came in his first edits to Talk:Red_rain_in_Kerala and chose to edit war anonymously with an administrator, User:Inshaneee, known to have an interest in the paranormal, over the appropriateness of a project label on the talk page. In subsequent complaints on WP:AN, several editors associated with User:Worldtraveller volunteered extremely strong statements about Inshaneee's adminship. WITHDRAWN (see comments below)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I would love to be proved wrong here, but the Scoobies have been acting so weirdly over the past six months that I can't be the only person to have noticed. It's like they turned into pod people or something. --Tony Sidaway 02:05, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

The immediately preceding comment by Tony Sidaway is more uncivil and offensive than any of the behavior (by either party) underlying the arbitration case. Newyorkbrad 02:11, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I (Worldtraveller) started the article Red rain in Kerala and contributed much of its content. 81.179.115.188 02:14, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I formally apologise to Worldtraveller and withdraw this propoed finding of fact. I did not know that he had created the article. I don't think it's uncivil to try to find the truth. --Tony Sidaway 02:19, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to see the characterization of experienced, respected Wikipedians as "the Scoobies" and "pod people" withdrawn and apologized for as well. Newyorkbrad 02:26, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

No. They've been behaving very, very oddly for some time now and it doesn't do to deny it. It is a fact that the Scoobies have made a habit of attacking other respected Wikipedians, to the extent of demanding that they relinquish all duties on Misplaced Pages. That kind of behavior, in my opinion, is beyond belief. Absolutely beyond understanding. Vindictive, spiteful and I hope, one day to be foresworn. --Tony Sidaway 02:34, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I accept Tony's apology but would second Newyorkbrad's suggestion and also hope Tony will remove his proposed principle above entitled 'Trolling'. 81.179.115.188 02:30, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Isn't it unfair to imply that Worldtraveller was jumping in on something he had little interest in just because it was Inshaneee who was editing it? (I assume that Tony is trying to imply that, because it's the meaning I pick up from his proposed finding of fact.) Worldtraveller actually started that article. See the very first version of it. ElinorD (talk) 02:18, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd contest Newyorkbrad's statement only in that I don't find 'scoobie gang' and 'pod people' "more uncivil and offensive" than Worldtraveller repeatedly calling InShaneee "witless moron" (, , ), "fuckwit" (), and "childish" () amongst other things. Tony should exercise a higher sense of decorum, but let's not pretend it has been sunshine and roses to this point. --CBD 07:35, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Probably not more offensive than InShaneee calling an editor a "douche" either. Derex 07:56, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't you also note, CBD, that you blocked him for saying that Inshaneee was acting like a fuckwit, and here you're arguing that Tony Sidaway's characterization of a group of people themselves is proper? I think the one looking inconsistent, or hypocritical, isn't Newyorkbrad. Geogre 20:15, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

No, I shouldn't note that... because I didn't block him for that. Again, you should look at the particulars of the case. Worldtraveller's claim that InShaneee IS a "fuckwit" (no 'acting like' sophistry in evidence) came after my block. As to the rest... I did not say that Tony's actions were proper (indeed, I said I agreed with Newyorkbrad that they weren't), I did not say that Newyorkbrad was inconsistent, I did not say that Newyorkbrad was hypocritical. I said that I do not agree with Newyorkbrad that "scoobies" and "pod people" were the worst incivility we have seen in this case. --CBD 20:48, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Inshanee blocked Worldtraveller inappropriately

3) The block of User:81.178.208.69 by Inshaneee was not supported by the blocking policy.

Comment by Arbitrators:

I can't find anybody who disagrees with this, least of all me. Mackensen (talk) 20:47, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

I don't think anyone seriously disputes this. Inshaneee fucked up and realizes he fucked up. --Tony Sidaway 02:04, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Endorse. You're right Tony. I fucked up, and I'll re-admit to that in whatever fashion the Committee would like me to. --InShaneee 20:37, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

My word, I wish you'd said that two months ago. 81.179.115.188 20:51, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Endorse (the proposal, not the phrasing of the comment). Fixed a typo. Newyorkbrad 02:15, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but it was not the block itself, but the aftermath that led us all here. --Irpen 06:25, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

The block review process failed

4) User:Worldtraveller, editing anonymously, placed a block review template on his talk page half-way through his block, but this was not reviewed before the twenty-four hour block ended.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

For what it's worth. It puzzles me that User:Worldtraveller didn't simply tell one of his colleagues, many of whom are administrators, that he'd been wrongly blocked. What was the problem? I'm still very suspicious about the role of the Scoobies here. It worries me that all they showed up so early in the discussion and expressed opinions so clearly at variance with those of the other respected editors. Yet none of them realised that the blocked editor was their friend! Pull the other one. --Tony Sidaway 02:47, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Worldtraveller deliberately misrepresented his identity

5) For unknown reasons, Worldtraveller misrepresented his Misplaced Pages status, referring to the "four edits I've made" " ., "It really won't take you long at all to assess whether I vandalised anything - I've got very few edits." ,

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Sure, it could be innocent. *just*. But again, why did this editor choose to get into an argument with a respected administrator in his first edits on Misplaced Pages in months, and why did he claim to be a newcomer in the middle of the argument? This looks like a troll, a fit-up. We've seen this before, only usually the trolls are not previously respected editors. --Tony Sidaway 03:07, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I can't respond to this any better than Derex did with his comment below. In addition I wonder by whose definition was InShaneee 'a respected admin', and how would I know that? I don't recall ever having encountered him before 31 December. Why on earth would I decide to pick a random editor to attack? What, in all my contributions, has given Tony the idea that I'd behave like that? 81.179.115.188 09:02, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

When InShanee blocked this ip, it had a total of 4 edits. In complaining, WorldTraveller pointed out that fact, indicating it would be a simple matter to review all the evidence that InShanee had seen. That's different than saying "I'm a newcomer." ... Sidaway repeatedly remarks how WT "chose to get in an argument with a respected admin". Does it not take two to argue? Are all admins privileged against dissent by "trolls", or just "respected" ones? How about the "Scoobies"? They seem to be getting trolled a lot here by Sidaway; I can only assume they're not respected admins but Sidaway is a respected admin. Derex 03:59, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Aftermath of the block

6) When Worldtraveller raised his objections to the block on the Administrators' Noticeboard after its expiration, InShaneee failed to respond to the concerns and questions expressed by Worldtraveler and by several administrators in a reasonably satisfactory manner. Over the ensuing two months, Worldtraveller pursued the matter, culminating in this arbitration case.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

To claim that InShaneee's failure to respond "satisfactorily" led to an arbitration case is obviously false. The relentless and indefensible harassment of InShaneee by Worldtraveller led to this arbitration case. --Tony Sidaway 04:00, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

No, the complete failure of InShaneee to bother responding to concerns expressed by me and by many administrators is what led to this case. If I had seen an administrator misuse their tools and fail to respond to criticism, and not pursued it, that would have been indefensible. My own view is that 'in a reasonably satisfactory manner' could be omitted from the proposed text here because the single comment InShaneee made on WP:AN was not in response to anyone's concerns and did not make any attempt to explain his actions. It could also be made clearer that almost seven weeks passed without any response from InShaneee. This, to me, is the crux of the matter - without these unaccountable delays and refusals to discuss, this wouldn't have come anywhere near arbitration. 81.179.115.188 10:25, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. Newyorkbrad 03:16, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Support. Whatever anyone's idea is about what constitutes "satisfactory", ignoring the non-frivolous requests for explanation made by a non-troll for any length of time is unsatisfactory. Calling such requests "harassment" is rather unhelpful. Quick and sincere apology would have ended the matter early on. --Irpen 05:51, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

InShaneee's recent statements

7) In his statement with respect to the Arbitration Committee's acceptance of this case, InShaneee has acknowledged that the block that is the subject of this case was improper. InShaneee has also indicated that he intends to focus his administrator activities in upcoming months on less contentious areas than those he has addressed heretofore. See Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/InShaneee#Statement by InShaneee. See also, prior to this arbitration case, a similar comment here. InShaneee's comments provide a reasonable basis for expecting that his conduct at issue in this case will not be repeated.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

InShaneee apologised weeks ago but Worldtraveller continues to hound him. Do we have an expectation that Worldtraveller will cease his harassment? --Tony Sidaway 04:02, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. Newyorkbrad 03:16, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I can agree that Worldtraveller pursued this matter long after most other editors would have dropped it. Whether this is characterized as harassment or tenacity is a matter on which opinions can differ. Newyorkbrad 04:05, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Agree with the proposal that InShanee is unlikely to repeat a similar mistake within a reasonable future. But to respond to Tony's ungratuitous assertion, for an editor with immense contribution to the project, being blocked is a big deal. This is merely a human nature that people get angry when for months of their selfless work they get, what seems to them, as spit in the face from users who seem to come here mostly to tell others what to do (and enjoying it) and write nothing (I am not saying that InShanee is among those power freaks but it may have legitimately seemed so to WT whom he blocked). Blocks hurt committed editors for much longer than the time than the blocks run. To talk of statute of limitation here means ignoring deep feelings of the committed editors who make make Misplaced Pages such a high traffic site, which is all about the info we have here. --Irpen 05:59, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Certain allegations rejected

8) With respect to the allegation that InShaneee improperly unblocked himself in violation of the blocking policy, it appears that confusion arose because another administrator intended to unblock InShaneee's account and instead unblocked an imposter account. Accordingly, this allegation is rejected. Additionally, no basis for action is found regarding InShaneee's seeking the delisting of the prior Request for comment against him in view of apparent ambiguity concerning when, if ever, administrator-conduct and user-conduct RfC's should be de-listed.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

The allegation was false and may be set aside. No need to explicitly reject false allegations--it might lead some people to assume, erroneously, that allegations not explicitly rejected are accepted. -Tony Sidaway 03:44, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. Newyorkbrad 03:17, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Tony's point here is well-taken in terms of drafting the final decision, but I wanted to provide a platform here for discussion of the allegations if anyone feels the need to discuss them. Alternatively, this would be an appropriate place for Worldtraveller to withdraw the allegation if he sees fit to do so. Newyorkbrad 03:49, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

The RFC bit is torturously worded. What InShanee actually did is personally delist a certified RFC on himself, over objection, four times. That's quite a different matter than "seeking the delisting", which suggests a sober discussion on Talk. At least, forthrightly state the "allegation rejected". Personally, the RFC edit war is the action that made me finally lose all confidence in his judgement. So, if arbom is to endorse that action, I'd like it to be explicit rather than as sort of a tack-on to the technical self-unblock violation. Derex 05:54, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Worldtraveller repeatedly harassed InShaneee

9) Worldtraveller repeatedly harassed InShaneee long after InShanneee apologised

Comment by Arbitrators:

Regardless of comments made earlier, InShaneee's statement of February the 18th is an admission of error. You can't force people to make the apology that you want. Mackensen (talk) 15:08, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Administrators should always be willing to discuss and explain their administrative actions. Paul August ☎ 18:22, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

I think this is the problem. Had Worldtraveller accepted that his grievance had been aired and thst InShanee had already accepted that he'd jumped the gun in blocking him, I don't think we'd have a case here. InShaneee was not at this point in dispute with Worldtraveller on any point except Worldtraveller's unwillingness to stop gnawing on the bone.--Tony Sidaway 03:40, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

To clarify for Worldtraveller, both InShaneee's edit warring and that of Worldtraveller were blockable disruption, there's no question on that. InShaneee instead of seeking help and advice "jumped the gun" and abused his sysop powers. Neither editor acted well at the time. --Tony Sidaway 16:51, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Come on. I removed the tag three times over three days; he restored it. Which bit of WP:BP says that's something you should block for? 81.179.115.188 19:29, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Blocking is never mandatory, but this kind of disruption (edit warring over templates) has quite often resulted in blocking, particularly if as in this case an editor has the appearance of having edit warring as his sole purpose in for editing the wiki. --Tony Sidaway 19:47, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

This was a content dispute. From WP:BP: Disagreements over content or policy are not disruption, but rather part of the normal functioning of Misplaced Pages and should be handled through dispute resolution procedures 81.179.115.188 19:56, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Edit warring, even over content, is always disruption. When and whether it becomes blockable is for debate. I'd say both editors had clearly shown that they had no intention of discussion. --Tony Sidaway 20:06, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

This proposal relies on the assumption that as long as anyone says sorry, then they are absolved of their sins and anyone who had a problem with them should leave them alone. Had InShaneee left his 'apology' six weeks earlier, and been willing to actually discuss the situation on AN/I and explain why he blocked against policy, things would never have got this far. Refusing to let an administrator get away with a big mistake is not harassment, not by any stretch of the imagination.

As for 'jumping the gun' - so you and he both apparently both think he should have blocked, just not at the time he did? 81.179.115.188 08:53, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposal deeply ignores how much it hurts editors with immense contributions to the project to be blocked. It further ignores the fact that an instant quick and sincere apology usually ends such matters despite being rarely given. --Irpen 06:01, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Also ignores that it wasn't much of an apology, particularly in light of previous comments like this. Derex 06:41, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Inappropriate conduct by an editor during this arbitration case

10) During the evidence/workshop phase of this arbitration case, Tony Sidaway, while exercising his right as an editor to present evidence and workshop proposals, was uncivil, made personal attacks, and engaged in unnecessarily inflammatory conduct in that, among other things, he:

(A) Unnecessarily added himself as a party to the case, although he had no involvement in the block dispute underlying the case or in any related matter and there was no reason for him to be listed as a party;

(B) Repeatedly referred to Bishonen, Geogre, and Bunchofgrapes, administrators or former administrators who objected to InShaneee's conduct surrounding the block of Worldtraveller, as "the Scooby Gang" or "the Scoobies", a mocking reference to characters from the television series Scooby-Doo and/or Buffy the Vampire Slayer;

(C) Uncivilly refused to withdraw his characterization of Bishonen, Geogre, and Bunchofgrapes as "the Scooby Gang" or "the Scoobies" when asked to do so and repeatedly continued to use and to emphasize the use of these epithets thereafter;

(D) Uncivilly stated or implied, without evidentiary support, that members of "the Scooby Gang" have objected to InShaneee's block of Worldtraveller over a period of weeks and have presented evidence in this arbitration case for reasons other than their good-faith views on the merits of the issues in the case;

(E) Uncivilly accused "the Scooby Gang" of "vigilanteeism" for supporting the bringing of this case;

(F) Uncivilly stated that the members of "the Scooby Gang" "have been behaving very, very oddly for some time now and it doesn't do to deny it. It is a fact that the Scoobies have made a habit of attacking other respected Wikipedians, to the extent of demanding that they relinquish all duties on Misplaced Pages"; in addition to being incivil and containing personal attacks, these allegations referred to extremely bitter prior disputes having nothing to do with this case and had the obvious potential to unnecessarily inflame and broaden the scope of the present case for no legitimate purpose;

(G) Uncivilly stated that "I would love to be proved wrong here, but the Scoobies have been acting so weirdly over the past six months that I can't be the only person to have noticed. It's like they turned into pod people or something"; and

(H) In his evidence, referred to User:A Link to the Past as "a disruptive troll", notwithstanding that A Link to the Past, despite rough edges and a significant block log, is a longtime contributor who has made substantial good-faith contributions and whose overall conduct as a Wikipedian cannot reasonably be characterized as trolling.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Oh do grow up. --Tony Sidaway 04:05, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Seriously, if there is any merit at all to this, I should be banned from Misplaced Pages forever. It would be an act of kindness to me and to all other Wikipedians. --Tony Sidaway 04:31, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

The one time I recall having anything to do with Tony Sidaway was about two years ago when we found ourselves on the same side of a dispute with User:Everyking. I'm struggling to think of any reason why he might have decide to make the astonishing accusations he's made against me and others. I find his use of the term 'scoobies' immature and unhelpful, if not really uncivil. I can't really understand why he's added himself as a party when he has played no part in this dispute at all. He seems to be trying to obfuscate the issues by bringing in unrelated gripes such A Link to the Past and his perception of poor behaviour on the part of Geogre, Bishonen and Bunchofgrapes. 81.179.115.188 08:42, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed, with regret. This has to stop. Newyorkbrad 03:46, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Can't you just be minimally civil, especially on arbitration pages, of all things? Newyorkbrad 04:33, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure that the behavior during the arbitration counts but if so, the proposal hits the nail. Tony's attitudes seem to not have improved or cured by his leave. It is very much not helping. --Irpen 06:04, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

The last time I saw Tony Sidaway was when he was posting 144 times to the "Workshop" page of the "Giano case." He was often coming back to add comments to his own comments. If anyone is acting oddly, it certainly seems to be him. Even here, he has a sarcastic response and then a melodramatic "ban me forever." Emotion seems to be typing, not reason, and anger and bitterness, rather than any helpful emotion. He has nothing to say in defense of Inshaneee, nothing to add to mitigate or ameliorate, but only side issues to clutter and to come back to. That has to stop, I agree. Geogre 12:49, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

CBDunkerson's block of Worldtraveller was contested

11) User:CBDunkerson blocked User:Worldtraveller citing the following diffs: as commented here. The block was contested here

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed.--MONGO 07:57, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Is the section heading intended simply to describe current practice? Or is it intended to endorse PA blocks based on judgement calls as a reasonable standard practice? Derex 08:09, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Adjusted.--MONGO 08:21, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Clarification. The wording seems to imply that I blocked for the content of those three diffs alone. It was the continuation of the behaviour after repeated warnings which prompted me to act. Most notably, Worldtraveller's assertion in the first diff that if what he was doing was (as several people had said) harassment, then he would "keep on harassing". As there was, at that time, a clear consensus of opinion that Worldtraveller's actions were harassment, he had been warned that a block was imminent if it continued, no one disputed that warning on AN/I in the 30+ hours between it and the block, and Worldtraveller had vowed (and acted upon that vow) to continue the behaviour, I felt that a block to stop the ongoing disruption was both needed and approved by the community. Subsequent to the block there have been many objections that Worldtraveller committed no personal attacks and/or harassment. While these seem to me false on their face, had they occurred prior to the block I would have weighed the potential disruption of possible wheel-warring against the certain disruption of ongoing harassment. --CBD 09:27, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Adjusted.--MONGO 09:38, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

That some people may condone or make light of the harassment, doesn't mean that the harassment didn't take place. Inshaneee came to me a few weeks ago, obviously extremely concerned about Worldtraveller's activities, and at his wits end to know what to do, having already admitted his error and apologised. Worldtraveller's activities were not making Misplaced Pages a better environment in which to work. --Tony Sidaway 20:58, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

• ...and your activities do - I suppose? Get real Tony but out of this and mind toyr own business. Giano 21:04, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

In what sense did InShaneee come to you? I see no evidence of that on your talk page. 81.179.115.188 21:16, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

HighInBC's block of Worldtraveller was contested

12) User:HighInBC first declined Worldtraveller's unblock request and then extended CBDunkerson's already existing block of Worldtraveller another 24 hours after Worldtraveller commented here. Worldtraveller then scrambled his username password, effectively closing out his long standing account. The block was contested here.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

This seems to be straying far from the substance of the case. --Tony Sidaway 20:38, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I think it would be reasonable to say that CBD and HighinBC didn't manage to get it right. ---Tony Sidaway 21:07, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed.--MONGO 08:18, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Response to Tony Sidaway: subsequent blocks did not deescalate the situation, they only escalated it and certainly are contributing factors in this situation.--MONGO 20:59, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

InShaneee's conduct was the subject of an RFC

13) Worldtraveller filed a request for comment regarding InShaneee's original block. The RFC did not meet the two-person threshold and was deleted after four days.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. Mackensen (talk) 15:16, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

This was an apparently genuine attempt by Worldtraveller to air his grievances using the dispute resolution process. It's a shame that those who commented on the original block did not endorse it. Perhaps Worldtraveller didn't tell them about it, which is a shame if true. --Tony Sidaway

He did attempt to get certification from someone completely uninvolved with the current dispute, though . I'll say, of course, that I certainly can't argue with the RfC's existance, so I'll endorse this finding. --InShaneee 20:45, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I mentioned the RfC on AN: . 81.179.115.188 20:59, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, at least you tried, which is to your credit. --Tony Sidaway 21:10, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Worldtraveller made personal attacks

14) Worldtraveller made personal attacks against InShaneee, CBDunkerson, and HighInBC. It is against Misplaced Pages policy for users to do so and is considered especially poor form for long time members of the community do so.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. Mackensen (talk) 15:24, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

I would say the problem is that he was encouraged in his belief that his conduct was acceptable, by those who stepped in and defended it. --Tony Sidaway 17:07, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd also point out that Inshaneeee himself was not really well behaved. Nobody comes out of this looking good. --Tony Sidaway 20:37, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I called InShaneee a witless moron, out of extreme frustration that he was completely ignoring all the problems he'd caused. I apologised for it . 81.179.115.188 21:14, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

It may seem like a technicality, but there really is a difference between saying "you're acting like jerks" and saying "you're jerks." This is not to say that anyone should do the former, but, honestly, I can act like a jerk without being one, and I fully expect that other people can, too, and so I see a great deal less in choice of term (it wasn't "jerk") and characterization than apparently other people do. Geogre 16:50, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

You may be right, but that's a technicality that was evidently lost on people. These kinds of remarks inflame the situation and do nothing towards resolving the dispute. Mackensen (talk) 16:58, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

"You're clearly just a witless moron". Please, explain the 'technicality' under which that isn't a personal attack. :] --CBD 17:24, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

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.

InShaneee admonished

1) By reason of the foregoing, InShaneee is strongly admonished:

(A) To impose blocks on editors only in strict accordance with the blocking policy and other applicable policies, and in particular, not to block any editor with whom he is engaged, or could reasonably be perceived as being engaged, in a content dispute;

(B) To consult with other administrators, rather than act unilaterally, in instances where the propriety of a block or another administrator action could reasonably be questioned; and

(C) To respond promptly and in good faith to reasonable questions and criticisms concerning his administrator actions.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Newyorkbrad 03:56, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

A, B and C above is nothing but some common sense rule that should always apply to all administrators. Why only InShanee? He is clearly not the most abusive one and not even within top 10 or 20. Just happened to be less lucky to hit the editor who feels stronger about pursuing the issue. But support the proposal of course. --Irpen 06:10, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Decorum in arbitration cases

2) Editors are requested to maintain appropriate decorum and civility on arbitration pages and to refrain from using epithets or making allegations that may unnecessarily inflame disputes. Newyorkbrad 03:56, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Newyorkbrad, 03:56, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Support. That this even needs to be raised is unfortunate. --Irpen 06:10, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Worldtraveller

3) In their capacity as individual editors, the arbitrators urge Worldtraveller to put aside his grievance with the block at issue in this case and to resume contributing high-quality content to the encyclopedia.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

The arbitrators cannot make a remedy in their capacity as individual editors. --Tony Sidaway 20:18, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. Newyorkbrad 03:56, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Worldtraveller (alternative)

4) Worldtraveller is thanked for an exceptional quality and quantity of his edits in the capacity of content creator and urged to resume contributing high-quality content to the encyclopedia. He is requested to recognize that to err is human, including on the part of admins, accept the apology for an unfair block, put aside his grievance with the block and the blocker and drop the matter.

Comment by Arbitrators:

This is sensible. Mackensen (talk) 20:22, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Whatever happened - happened. InShanee is clearly not the fragrant abuser of admin powers. His main mistake is failure to properly act in the aftermath. As for the block, it was an unfortunate one, but Misplaced Pages have seen more fragrant blocks and blockers. --Irpen 06:22, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I think you mean "flagrant". They might be fragrant as well but that's another issue. This is a good and rounded finding. Sam Blacketer 11:25, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

InShaneee is desysoped

5) For inappropriate blocking, InShannee is desysoped. He may reapply at any time via WP:RFA.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. (first arbcom comment, please don't WP:BITE, thanks). — Selmo 04:36, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

No reason to bite; perfectly right as to form. My personal view is that another chance could be accorded (see my proposed findings above and the evidence I'll be submitting in the morning), but this is certainly a potential outcome. Newyorkbrad 04:39, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Tend to agree with Brad if InShanee can admit the mistake and that his reaction to it (or lack of it) aggravated the matters. --Irpen 06:12, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Given Inshanee's statement when the case was brought that his 24-hour block "was rash, reactive, and I should have sought more discussion and input before acting in any capacity on the matter", I would say that he has accepted criticism and is trying to improve. If the committee is thinking on the lines that the blocking was an egregious breach of the blocking policy (I make no comment for or against) then it would be more appropriate to pass a temporary suspension of sysop status rather than this. Sam Blacketer 11:23, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Given that this block occurred more than two months ago and there have been no challenges to any more recent ones, I think a suspension would be merely punitive rather than remedial at this point. Newyorkbrad 13:06, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I strongly support. He abused his administrator privilages various times. Assuming there was no intent of those abuses makes it worst, as it shows he has poor judgement. Not everyone are fit to be administrators, regardless of how well intentioned they are. Administrators don't realise the gravity of the situation. Administrators on Misplaced Pages are not moderators from a private forum, they are "elected" from the community, which trust them. InShaneee has broken this trust and there is a significant reason for him to reapply. Administrative privilages are there to serve Misplaced Pages not harm it and when an administrator place an unjustifiable block, he is harming Misplaced Pages by not allowing a user to contribute. The community did not vote for this, the community voted to make a user an administrator because it is good for Misplaced Pages. If an administrator has lost significantly the trust of the community, the same community which elected him/her, then that person is not a legitimate administrator. I strongly urge the arbitrators to consider this option. I think the community should be polled here. Being an administrator is not a dictatorship, the community trust is all that matters. Fad (ix) 19:31, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

InShaneee is de-sysopped (alternative)

6) For his consistent refusal to acknowledge criticism of his administrative actions, and to explain them when they have been discussed on the administrator's noticeboard, InShaneee is de-sysopped.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I've said a number of times that the block was nothing worth arbitrating over - the subsequent blank refusal to discuss is what has brought this here. I think it shows contempt for one's fellow administrators to ignore discussions in the way InShaneee has done. User:MONGO was de-sysopped for failure to relate appropriately with other administrators and to me that's InShaneee's biggest failing. 81.179.115.188 10:57, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

To comment on Sam Blacketer's comment, I am extremely troubled by the fact that it took an arbitration case to get InShaneee to acknowledge criticism. He spent seven weeks stonewalling before giving even a half-hearted apology, and I can't think of any good reason at all why he didn't offer any justification of the block when it was discussed on AN/I. His refusal to comment is the only reason this case ever got to arbitration. If he'd have responded in early January, we'd probably all be happily editing articles right now instead of arbitration pages. 81.179.115.188 19:51, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

In his statement on Requests for arbitration when opening the case was being discussed, Inshaneee definitely acknowledged criticism and stated that he should have sought more discussion. For that reason, I would encourage rejection of this proposal. Sam Blacketer 11:19, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't see that clearly there, and in my case, InShaneee never accepted he did anything wrong, he even justified it when another administrator said he see no block material. InShaneee has even gone to lie about the block on IRC talking in my back when a respected member reported that to me. It was really not the proper conduct of an administrator. Fad (ix) 19:40, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

The edit referred to is here. Sam Blacketer 19:57, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

All participants admonished

7) All participants in this dispute are admonished for taking a bad 24-hour block and escalating it into a two-month-long dispute. Numerous opportunities for users of high stature to step in and defuse the situation were not followed. It is expected the users of high standing, administrators or no, will act to defuse and ameliorate disputes for the benefit of the community at large.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. I would make no other remedies. This should never have got this far. Mackensen (talk) 15:28, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Probably the most appropriate single remedy proposed here. --Tony Sidaway 16:59, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Works for me. I know I was disappointed in my inability to conceive of a 'peaceful' solution to the matter. --CBD 16:56, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

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: