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. Anyone who edits should sign all suggestions and comments. Arbitrators will place proposed items they have confidence in on /Proposed decision.

1) As much of this concerns Irishpunktom's interactions with Karl_Meier, Karl Meier is hereby added as a party to this case.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Seems sensible. James F. (talk) 17:28, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Proposed by me. Karl Meier has engaged in problematic behavior similar to that of Irishpunktom, including inappropriate use of his user page and revert warring. --Tony Sidaway 16:20, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I can see the logical force behind doing this given the statements on the RFAr. David | Talk 16:49, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• That's fine with me, as I have clearly been involved in some of the conflicts with Irishpunktom. Regarding the now rather infamous link that I placed on my userpage some months ago, it is clear that it was indeed a "inappropiate use of my userpage". My only defence regarding this is that I have agreed to have it removed, and I have admitted that it was a mistake to place it there. It is a mistake that I won't repeat. Regarding the reverts that I have made, my position is that they have been justified, according to policy, and that they where made in order to protect Wikipedia from biased editing. -- Karl Meier 18:25, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Update: I just added myself as a party to this case. -- Karl Meier 18:30, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Now the motion is moot. On the link, I had already noted that you accept that it was inappropriate. Irishpunktom's attack was in my opinion abusive because it tried to revive an old, dead issue. --Tony Sidaway 19:07, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

1) Because of the in my opinion reasonable evidence ([1], [2]) that has now been presented regarding Irishpunktom's possible use of an abusive sockpuppet account, Maliki-sis, I request that the IP addresses of these accounts is examined. -- Karl Meier 18:05, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Same area of Europe, but unlikely. Fred Bauder 14:04, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

1) Wikipedia's neutral point-of-view (NPOV) policy contemplates inclusion of all significant points of view regarding any subject on which there is division of opinion.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

In my view the proposed decision has missed the point of this case somewhat fundamentally. It is really an NPOV dispute which has led on to excessive reverting. In my view Irishpunktom has edited from his own point of view. It may be that Karl Meier has done the same: having read the evidence page I see such evidence presented there, although I am not familiar with him or his editing to state my opinion. My proposed principles 1-5 are all drawn from the Arbitration Policy past decisions page. Proposed by David | Talk 22:11, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

2) A strong point of view expressed elsewhere on a subject does not necessarily mean POV-pushing editing on Wikipedia; that can only be determined by the edits to Wikipedia.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I have added this just in case the Arbitration Committee feels inclined to adopt it. I suppose it could apply equally to Irishpunktom or myself, or to one and not the other. Proposed by David | Talk 22:11, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

3) The Wikipedia policy of editing from a neutral point of view, a central and non-negotiable principle of Wikipedia, applies to situations where there are conflicting viewpoints and contemplates that significant viewpoints regarding such situations all be included in as fair a manner as possible.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

A possible alternative to principle 1. Proposed by David | Talk 22:11, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

4) Wikipedia users are usually expected to discuss changes which are controversial; while this does not necessarily mean discussing the edit before making it, if an edit is reverted a user should make an attempt at discussion before changing it back.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I am strongly in favour of this proposal being part of the final resolution. It is directly relevant to the editing dispute over Peter Tatchell in every particular. Proposed by David | Talk 22:11, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

5) When disputing the accuracy or neutrality of an article, users are always expected to give a reason on the article's talk page.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I am also strongly in favour of this given, in particular, the fact that Irishpunktom has several times put tags on Peter Tatchell disputing accuracy or neutrality without giving a reason (even when prompted). Proposed by David | Talk 22:11, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

6) Neutral point of view as defined on Wikipedia also encompasses the priority and extent of coverage given to different aspects of a subject. An article may lack the neutral point of view if it elevates a minor aspect of the subject to a major role.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

This would be breaking new ground. I think the proposed principle speaks for itself, but if Arbitrators are interested in discussing or perhaps refining it, the best forum may be on my user talk page. Proposed by David | Talk 22:11, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

1) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

0.5) The locus of this dispute is over the following three issues: a) Whether Irishpunktom, by virtue of edit warring including multiple reverts and addition of material endorsing a particular point of view, has damaged Wikipedia; b) Whether Dbiv, in resisting some of Irishpunktom's edits, was acting reasonably; c) Whether Karl Meier was provoking Irishpunktom to a confrontation.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I find "locus of dispute" findings to be extremely useful in interpreting the rest of an arbitration decision, so I've taken the liberty of proposing one based on the initial request. Feel free to tinker, though. David | Talk 22:47, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

1) Irishpunktom has an extensive history of edit warring. (evidence)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Copied from the proposed decision. --Tony Sidaway 14:48, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2) Irishpunktom's habit of making 3 edits in 24 hours to game the WP:3RR (eg [3]), consistent lack of helpful edit summary or justification when reverting (often simply "rv" [4], [5], etc.), and comments like "self revert - gotta wait an hour or so" show Irishpunktom has a clear sense of entitlement to reverts and perceives reverting as a valid editing method.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Copied from the proposed decision. --Tony Sidaway 14:48, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3) Despite a very extensive history of blocks for edit warring and violations of the WP:3RR. After 12 blocks in the last 18 months, this behavior has failed to change.[6]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Copied from the proposed decision. --Tony Sidaway 14:48, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

4) Dbiv has engaged in a protracted edit war with Irishpunktom, particularly regarding the article Peter Tatchell. [7]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I would not use the term "protracted". The term "sporadic" seems more appropriate. It should be understood that any failure to come to consensus, where the parties make multiple edits to an article within a short space of time, may be termed an "edit war" without it being considered necessarily to be the fault of any of them.

Of course this raises a question as follows. If an editor finds others repeatedly making edits which damage an article, either by rendering it not NPOV or otherwise, and those others insist on their edits and refuse to discuss them, what should the editor do? Should they do nothing, and see the encyclopaedia damaged? Should they insist on removing the damage, and then risk adverse findings and a restriction of their edits should the matter ever come to the attention of ArbCom? This is not a rhetorical or hypothetical question; it is a very real one. David | Talk 18:29, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Copied from the proposed decision. --Tony Sidaway 14:48, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

5) After being blocked for a 3RR violation, Dbiv used his administrator status to unblock his own account[8], an explicit violation of the blocking policy. During the course of an edit war with Irishpunktom on Peter Tatchell, Dbiv reverted to his preferred version[9] and then protected the article[10], an explicit violation of the protection policy. During the course of his long-term edit war with Irishpunktom, Dbiv has consistently used his administrative rollback tool to revert Irishpunktom's and others' non-vandalism, good faith content edits.[11]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

With regard to the first sentence, it is inappropriate for a finding of fact on this arbitration case as it has not been mentioned in evidence and has absolutely nothing to do with it. It is surprising to find it even mentioned here; it is appalling to find it mentioned here when it has not been mentioned in evidence; it is fundamentally unacceptable to find it mentioned here when the committee has not thought fit to ask about the circumstances. Even the not very good Wikipedia article on natural justice says that a fundamental principle is audi alterem partem.

It is untrue to say I reverted to "my preferred version". I very much didn't like that version, I just felt it was better than the alternative. But the overriding motive was to put an immediate stop to the edit war, and indeed that was what happened.

The third part contains a blatant falsehood. Following the link shows that I have only used the rollback button on three occasions when not dealing with Irishpunktom or a sockpuppet, and all of those occasions were vandal edits. I have rolled back Irishpunktom only where I was convinced that his edits were harming the article. A rollback is not an administrative privilege: any editor may revert an article, so this is inappropriate for inclusion in a section which reads more like a "fishing expedition". David | Talk 13:36, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Copied from the proposed decision. --Tony Sidaway 14:48, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's puzzling to see this part about Dbiv abusing his powers to unblock himself when in Dbiv's block log we can see the original blocking admin User:Tom harrison himself unblocking Dbiv after his original block had been re-applied. That inclines one to believe that User:Dbiv in good faith unblocked himself. Please see my comments below regarding Dbiv's edits/actions in relationship to Irishpunktom. Counter to my earlier sentiments I now think Dbiv should endure either no injunction or an adminstrative probationary period lasting 1 year. Netscott 16:59, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

6) Karl Meier has frequently edit warred on a number of articles and with a number of different editors. See list of relevant article edit histories.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Copied from the proposed decision. --Tony Sidaway 14:48, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

7) Irishpunktom is uncivil, frequently making assumptions of bad faith such as referring to other editors as racists and bigots for opposition to his edits. [12] [13] [14]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Define "frequently" - I've only ever called Karl a racist (after his Userpage additions, which he refused to remove), and only ever called Zeno of Elea a Bigot (after he refered to me as a "Ramadan-crazed narcasistic fundamentalist" a "Muslim fundamentalist", referred to islam as a "horrid religion", Muhammad as a "deranged rapist psychopath".) While this was wrong, and I admt fault, I cannot see how it could be considered Frequent.--Irishpunktom\^talk 09:37, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Copied from the proposed decision. --Tony Sidaway 14:48, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Netscott is not a racist, Karl is."[15]

"paranoia is bad for a racist"[16]

"Shockingly enough, karls first edit here is to Revert me! - Who would have guessed it?!"[17]

"known racist"[18]

"karls meat puppet"[19]

"known pov pushing karl"[20]

and many instances of the standard "rv karl" and minor variations thereof. Most of it seems to be centered around Karl (which I'm sure is accidental), with the random "harrassing", "ignorant", "vandal" for others. Edit comments that can be construed unfriendly is something I suggest watching out for in the future. Weregerbil 18:41, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

8) Since the beginning of this case, Dbiv and Irishpunktom have made an agreement between themselves to limit their editing with the object of preventing any editing disputes between them. Both regard it as binding on their conscience, and the terms of the agreement are such as would prevent any disruption.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. David | Talk 21:23, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

1) There is absolutely no point in contributing to this page as the arbitrators don't pay a blind bit of notice to it.

Comment by Arbitrators:

What did you expect? We clearly disagree as to what the situation calls for. It is certainly not your decision when thi is closed, and so while we've read and know your psition, that's why there was no reaction from me: I was not moved. As for this proposed remedy it is at best goading and an assumption of bad faith. Strangely, considering your behavior so far I am not surprised. Dmcdevit·t 06:36, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Pretty bloody obvious by now. David | Talk 22:54, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

1) Irishpunktom and Dbiv are banned from editing Peter Tatchell for one year.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Copied from the proposed decision.

The ArbCom will be aware that I have privately stated what the effect would be of adopting this soi-disant 'remedy' in respect of me. I have not changed my view. I hope the committee understands the grave seriousness of what I wrote.

I also regard it as inappropriate in the case of Irishpunktom. The fact that it is the only article mentioned in his connection is a demonstration of how the authors of the proposed decision have misread this case. The case was not brought after the edit war on Peter Tatchell but on other articles such as Mahmoud Ahmedinejad and Islamophobia. I came in and added the Peter Tatchell dispute because it seemed similar and in order to restrain any tendency to over-reaction. In my view, it would be arbitrary to single out articles, and is unnecessary because of other proposed restrictions. David | Talk 18:44, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

I think (?) this means he's going to leave if you do this. Which would be a great pity. It seems a harsh penalty in itself given that David was actually on the right in his editing of the article.

The Golux 17:26, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This does not appear to be of any significant use, and is just an arbitrary suppression of the parties. It stops the edit war, but it would probably cost the project one or two good contributors. Stifle (talk) 00:41, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2) Irishpunktom shall for one year be limited to one revert per article per week, excepting obvious vandalism. Further, he is required to discuss any content reversions on the article's talk page.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Copied from the proposed decision. I support this remedy. In fact this is all that is needed to dispose of the case in respect of Irishpunktom. David | Talk 18:45, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suport this too. --Irishpunktom\^talk 09:40, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

3) Irishpunktom is placed on Probation for one year. This means that any administrator, in the exercise of their judgement for reasonable cause, may ban him from any page which he disrupts by inappropriate editing. He must be notified on his talk page of any bans, and a note must also placed on WP:AN/I. All bans to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Irishpunktom#Log_of_blocks_and_bans.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Copied from the proposed decision. I regard this remedy as excessive, and unnecessary with the revert parole proposed above. Adopting it would damage Wikipedia by discouraging Irishpunktom from editing. David | Talk 18:47, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I thought this was used in cases where there was inappropriate editing, usually vandalism, blanking, etc. What have I done to deserve this? - Reverting? I don't really understand. --Irishpunktom\^talk 09:42, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

I concur with David's point of view here. In my own experience the reverting without discussing has been the main point of difficulty. With the revert patrol, this issue shall be solved. Netscott 15:01, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some evidence presented shows disruptive behavior by Irishpunktom related to his use of edit summaries, and reverting editors by name without giving an explanation (it's only appropriate to revert an editor by name if he's banned by the Arbitration Committee from editing the article). A probation may be appropriate if this is seen as a significant and ongoing problem. --Tony Sidaway 12:36, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was not aware that it was inappropriate to revert using the editors name in the Edit summary. It's not like its an insult, it was just saying who you are reverting. David, Karl, Jayjg, and possibly others have reverted me by name and I never saw that as inappropriate. Is there a Policy on this? --Irishpunktom\^talk 13:21, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's rude and it doesn't explain why you're reverting the edit. --Tony Sidaway 18:23, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

4) For abuse of protection, unblocking, and rollback powers, as well as poor judgment shown in edit warring, Dbiv is desysopped.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

As previously stated I consider it entirely inappropriate to found any decision on unblocking because it is entirely irrelevant to the subject matter of this Arbitration. I have disputed that the other issues are seriously worthy of criticism.

The proposed remedy would also damage Wikipedia by lowering confidence in the Arbitration process. It would do this by:

1. More strongly restricting a party incidental to the main dispute than the party directly involved. Remember, I self-added to the arbitration which did not originally concern me.
2. Deterring disputants from seeking arbitration. Had I not self-added, then I would not have been brought in and no such finding would have been made. Other editors would take the hint: don't go to ArbCom or else anything you may have done anywhere else may be brought up and held against you.
3. Being so far out of line with other ArbCom decisions. I fully accept that precedent is not important and the ArbCom does not sit in a room full of dusty books recalling cases from the 1850s just in case someone mentions them. However, that does not mean that the ArbCom is being reasonable if someone who has caused minor disruption gets strong restrictions whereas someone who has caused major disruption gets very few or none. Just to pick three examples of findings in admin abuse: in the Blu Aardvark case, Raul654 twice unblocked a user without discussion and was admonished. Tony Sidaway was found to have "wheel warred" and reversed more than a dozen admins; he was placed on administrative 1RR. Most instructively, in the Pedophilia userbox wheel war case, (to pick just one), Ashibaka was described as "a particularly egregious wheel warrior" and had his sysop status removed for two weeks and then restored. Incidentally, "particularly egregious" is a tautology and whoever wrote that should be slapped round the face with a dictionary (but I digress). David | Talk 19:23, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Having myself frequently edited on articles of a shared interest to myself and User:Irishpunktom I can equally attest to having endured bouts of content conflict with Irishpunktom. I share User:Dbiv's view though that he is a valuable Wikipedia contributor (please note one of his latest article creations) but unfortunately mixed with his beneficial editing he makes edits that tend to strain one's ability to assume good faith on his part. User:Karl Meier mentioned Irishpunktom's edits on Islam in Denmark in regards to referring to Danes as Kafirs. The bad faith nature of this is very evident when shortly prior to Irishpunktom's edit I had established for myself (and subsequently demonstrated to him) that the term was unmistakably derogatory using primarily this Islamonline.net link (search the word "derogatory"). Despite this he later made this edit talking about "book-a-muslim" program wherein he wrote, "the Muslim organisation "The network" set up a system whereby Kaffir (Non-Muslim) Danes could "book a Muslim" " utilizing the term. I 100% believe (as apparently User:Slimvirgin did) that in editing and using his sysop abilities on Peter Tatchell and other editing relative to Irishpunktom User:Dbiv was diligently combatting such examples of edits not tending to be of a "good faith" nature on the part of Irishpunktom and thereby adopting the principal of "ignore all rules". On one of their edit wars on Peter Tatchell I tried to intervene as an outside party when they both had reached 3RR. When I started to edit on it David requested that I merely revert to a previous version but I informed him that I could not in clear conscience do that and so I began to copy-edit the article. Needless to say I was surprised by the content that I found in Irishpunktom's versions. It's beyond the scope of this section to go into full detail but I'll use this one diff of Irishpunktom reverting to his version. One section stood out in my mind, the "Attitude to Muslims" section. Irishpunktom's version had this, "anally raping a 13 year old boy at knifepoint, because tatchell believed the rapists were gay." The word "anally" in the context of that passage of text was 100% inflammatory and unecessary as the passage was discussing male on male rape and it's clear what that means. The only reason that is evident to me for including such a word is to prejudice the reader with regard to what was being discussed, as a sort of "baiting" to inflame the reader. The reason I'm explaining all of this is that I notice that it is proposed that User:Dbiv be desysoped. I would sooner council the Arbitration commitee to either not put an injunction on User:Dbiv or alternatively impose a sort of probation or suspension of his sysop abilities for 3-4 months whereupon at the end his full sysop status would be reinstated. Sincerely, Netscott 01:01, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Earlier suggestions struck in lieu of the suggested remedies below based upon commentary in this section and above.

1. No injunction.
2. 1 year period of adminstrative probation. Additional comment: In view of such "administrative probation" not existing I would recommend a temporary de-sysoping in lieu of this recommendation.

Netscott 17:45, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately the concept of Wikipedia:Administrative probation does not seem to have become active. There are only three sanctions which the ArbCom seems to have in respect of administrators: an admonishment, the "administrative One revert rule" (which has been used, it seems effectively, on Tony Sidaway), or desysopping either temporarily or permanently. Perhaps it's not appropriate for me to make this comment but imposing the administrative 1RR on me might look a bit odd, given that I would not have broken it previously. David | Talk 19:23, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, I was absent for over a week. I don't want this. This is not needed. --Irishpunktom\^talk 10:21, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

5) Karl Meier is placed on Probation for one year. This means that any administrator, in the exercise of their judgement for reasonable cause, may ban him from any page which he disrupts by inappropriate editing. He must be notified on his talk page of any bans, and a note must also placed on WP:AN/I. All bans to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Irishpunktom#Log_of_blocks_and_bans.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Copied from the proposed decision. I make no comment. David | Talk 18:48, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

1) The committee welcomes and endorses the voluntary agreement of two parties to this dispute. In the light of this, all remedies (except remedy 2) are suspended in respect of Dbiv and Irishpunktom for one year. This suspension will terminate if the agreement breaks down.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Perhaps the wording should be played around with although I think the intention is clear: like a suspended prison sentence, if you stay out of trouble, we'll forget about it, but go back to your old ways and you're for it. David | Talk 21:28, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

This would be a good idea. Stifle (talk) 00:39, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

8) For bad judgment and misuse of administrator tools, Dbiv's sysop status shall be removed from the end of this arbitration case. After one month, the status shall be restored.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

The problem is the Arbcom is wasting its time trying to determine this when it really isn't relevant. If proposed decision no. 1 (the article ban) stands, I will have to withdraw from Wikipedia until it is repudiated. Naturally if I have withdrawn from Wikipedia it really doesn't matter what happens to my sysop status. If it would lead the ArbCom to withdraw the article ban I would glady resign sysop status tomorrow, but sadly the ArbCom is so irrationally stuck on the article ban and refusing to enter into any form of discussion. So thanks for trying to help but it is at present a wasted effort. David | Talk 19:41, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Seeing as the ArbCom is split between desysopping permanently, a warning, and administrative probation, here is an attempt to enter middle ground. Stifle (talk) 14:25, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others: