Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Banning Policy/Workshop

Main case page (Talk) — Evidence (Talk) — Workshop (Talk) — Proposed decision (Talk)

Case clerk: TBD Drafting arbitrator: TBD

Purpose of the workshop: The case Workshop exists so that parties to the case, other interested members of the community, and members of the Arbitration Committee can post possible components of the final decision for review and comment by others. Components proposed here may be general principles of site policy and procedure, findings of fact about the dispute, remedies to resolve the dispute, and arrangements for remedy enforcement. These are the four types of proposals that can be included in committee final decisions. There are also sections for analysis of /Evidence, and for general discussion of the case. Any user may edit this workshop page; please sign all posts and proposals. Arbitrators will place components they wish to propose be adopted into the final decision on the /Proposed decision page. Only Arbitrators and clerks may edit that page, for voting, clarification as well as implementation purposes.

Behaviour on this page: Arbitration case pages exist to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at fair, well-informed decisions. You are required to act with appropriate decorum during this case. While grievances must often be aired during a case, you are expected to air them without being unnecessarily rude or hostile, and to respond calmly to allegations against you. Accusations of misbehaviour posted in this case must be proven with clear evidence (and otherwise not made at all). Editors who conduct themselves inappropriately during a case may be sanctioned by an arbitrator or clerk, without further warning, by being banned from further participation in the case, or being blocked altogether. Behavior during a case may be considered by the committee in arriving at a final decision.

Motions and requests by the parties

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

3)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed temporary injunctions

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

3)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

4)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Questions to the parties

Arbitrators may ask questions of the parties in this section.

Proposed final decision

Proposals by User:Tarc

Proposed principles

User talk pages and a degree of latitude

1) Per WP:UP#OWN, users do not own their talk pages; such pages are subject to project policy just as any other. In reality, there has been a long-standing tradition of leeway, e.g. users can instruct other users to not post on their page, and are generally exempt from 3RR to remove unwanted messages and the like.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Jimbo Wales' user talk page

2) Jimbo Wales' talk page is unique; while technically he is a user and it is his user's talk page, Jimbo's role as nominal project leader, "benevolent dictator", or whatever makes his talk page a sort of catch-all communication portal from the outside world to him. Sometimes a possibly banned user will use this to communicate, and many times Jimbo himself is ok with this, e.g. here. This communication should be allowed, per discretion of a talk page owner, and the discretion of a project founder.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Banned is banned, respect to the project means you respect the rules handed down. Consensus is made that a person is banned, usually this is because of problems following policies, why would we want to continue and reward that behavior by allowing them to flaunt it further on these special pages. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 12:27, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

"Banned is banned" is simplistic, black/white, either/or thinking. We're neither machines nor a bureaucracy, we can decide if the greater good of project improvement would be served by giving some things like this a bit of leeway. A banned editor may take a beautiful photograph of a plant or animal and upload it; would you deny it form being considered at Wikipedia:Featured pictures? A banned editor may raise an interesting point about a contentious area of the project. Why silence that question just because of who the asker may be? Even worse in all this was when I took the question on as my own, you STILL objected. Worse still was Johnuniq removal of my completely original re-phrasing ofthe original question. Tarc (talk) 13:35, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

You made it very clear here [[1]] that it was your intention to post it on their behalf and attribute that to the poster. That's a clear example of offering to proxy for a blocked user, you stated earlier you didn't know who they were nor did you particularly care, a reasonable person could infer that means you knew they were someone operating as a sock. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 13:56, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

That diff in particular was a request for assistance from a user who was being harried by you and Smallbones, so yes, I re-phrased their question under my name. That was done per advice given at WP:ANI, where several editors suggested that to "take ownership" of banned content would make it my own, thus immune from yours crusade. That practice represents a long-standing community norm, where usable content can be salvaged from potentially disputed creators. If you have a problemw ith that, then I suggest taking it up at the Village Pump or a site-wide RfC. It is done all the time. Tarc (talk) 14:30, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Two things, One there is no request for help there, however let's assume that there is one and you thought it was a request for help at that point by your own admission you were editing on their behalf in violation of WP:EVADE. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 14:44, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Ahh, yes, in my mind I was mixing up that section with the other section. Either way, we're getting a bit afield from the point of this principle, which is Jimbo Wales' open door policy for his talk page. No person, on or off-wiki, has ever said "Tarc, will you edit this for me?". I cared not a whit for the suspected identity or identities of "SpottingTOU" or "The Rewarder"; all I saw at the time were editors with no block records, no sanction, no topic ban, being endlessly censored in contravention to Jimbo's wishes for how he, in my interpretation of his wishes, has expressed how he wishes his page to be open to all but the most plain trolling or harassment. Tarc (talk) 15:02, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Comment by others:

WP:DUCK is an essay, not policy

3) Too often (and I myself have been guilty of this) we enforce "the duck test" as if it were site policy, and it has led to the stifling of many conversations just because it "sounds like" something a known banned editor would say This essay should be deprecated, and users forbidden from acting upon it without evidence from a confirmed sock-puppet investigation, or a block of the suspected account. While an editor is unblocked and under no editing restriction, their edits are not to be subjected to blind reversion.

Comment by Arbitrators:

The "duck test" and blocking on mere suspicion can be overdone, but by saying that dealing with an obvious sockpuppet is never appropriate without a full-fledged SSI (which can take days), this veers too far in the other direction. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:44, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

People can be denied the right to edit, they cannot be denied common courtesy

4) Even banned editors are human beings, and apart from the truly sociopathic (e.g. banned pedophiles, stalkers, etc...), should not be treated like pond swill. At the end of the day, all they have done is broken the rules of a privately-operated website. They have not committed high crimes and misdemeanors against the state.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

What "here to build an encyclopedia" means

5) Specifically, AGK's unfortunate "not here to build an encyclopedia" acceptance comment, and to a lesser extent the comments of GorillaWarfare and Seraphimblade. After 10 years in existence, the project has shifted somewhat from content creation to content curation. There are many things that one can do for the project besides the actual writing of prose; first and foremost is the never-ending policing of content for the obvious vandalism and the sometimes-not-obvious WP:BLP problems. There are articles to delete and articles to keep. There are deletions/keeps to review. There is dispute resolution noble (MedCab) and foul (AN/I). There's the Reference Desk. The point is, the yardstick of "does editor X contribute enough article content?" as a measure of an editor's worth is about as obsolete as it'd be to ask Danica Patrick about her dexterity with a buggy whip.

Comment by Arbitrators:

"Building the encyclopedia" should be interpreted broadly to include any good-faith participation intended to benefit the content or the community. Vandalism-patrolling, BLP-monitoring, XfD and DRV voting, dispute resolution help, administrating, (and yes, even arbitrating), all qualify. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:48, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

I agree the comment made by 4 arb's is unfortunate as it appears their mind was made up before the actual case opened. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 12:23, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

(Per @Odysseus1479:'s request.) Specifically, AGK's unfortunate "not here to build an encyclopedia" acceptance comment, and to a lesser extent the comments of GorillaWarfare and Seraphimblade. Tarc (talk)

Comment by others:

I don‘t think the first sentence is at all appropriate, in its present form, for a proposed principle. @Tarc: would you consider reframing it in general terms, without reference to anyone’s specific remarks—or move it to the top of the “Comment by parties“ section, as a sort of footnote providing background rather than a preamble?—Odysseus1479 00:42, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Proposed findings of fact

Smallbones and 3RR

1) Smallbones has frequently claimed a WP:3RR exemption for his 25+ reversions of a possibly banned editor, though in discussions on Jimbo's page, AN/I, and the 3RR noticeboard, this claim has not borne fruit. Per WP:UP#OWN, "..as may edits from banned users...'". May, not must.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Follow-up; Smallbones vehemently asserts that his 25-ish reverts are protected by WP:NOT3RR, however this assertion has been challenged by myself and numerous others. On that page, note "When in doubt, do not revert. Instead, engage in dispute resolution, and in particular ask for help at relevant noticeboards such as the Edit war/3RR noticeboard." I contend that "doubt" is introduced the moment another editor says "that ain't right", much the same as proposed deletion is voided the moment another editor objects. Again, I claim no right to 25-ish reverts either; I did it because I felt a user (banned or not banned is irrelevant) was being unfairly silenced. Smallbones does claim a right to his 25-ish reverts, and we're here to see that and these points adjudicated; whether a user can remove comments from either a suspected' or proven banned editor from another user's talk page, whether that user can continuously remove the comments when challenged by another editor. Tarc (talk) 22:13, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Tarc and 3RR

2) I egregiously violated 3RR, and claim no exemption or right to the 25+ reverts on the days in question. It got to a "well we're way past 3 now, so..." point and the rest was history. I will note that the 3RR filing was declined, though.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Hell in a Bucket and casting aspersions

3) Several times, Hell in a Bucket 1, 2 3 referred to another editor (i.e. me) as a troll for restoring the edits of a possibly banned user.

Comment by Arbitrators:

You were both completely obnoxious and out of control. I'm not drafting this case, but I don't personally think it will be productive to dilate on who called whom what name on which date. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:49, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

I don't know what else to call the countless insults and attacks you were making via edit summaries and edit contents a partial listing is found here [[2]]. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 11:52, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

You are being a bit untruthful at the moment. Your accusations of "trolling" had nothing to do with that, you were directing them at me for the sole reason that I restored the edits of an editor you suspected was a banned one. Read the 3 links I provided above; "your horse is dissecated[sic] now, now move on to your disruptive trolling", "Congrats Tarc take a bow for helping them troll Jimbo", and "Tarc is trolling on behalf of a banned editor". Tarc (talk) 12:19, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

I guess I'm not seeing what's untruthful in telling you to move on from a closed issue which was my comment saying cunt, queer, nigger, and moving on to what I classify as trolling behavior in this overall incident. I'll let others decide for themselves based on the evidence left on the table to see whether they care to agree but I'd seriously review what's in my evidence and maybe you can see how antagonistic you actually were, your own initial statements at the case request acknowledge your comments and summaries were "flippant." I am going to let others weigh in though because at this point anything further just clouds it for others. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 12:46, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

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

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposals by User:Count Iblis

Proposed principles

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a bureaucracy

1) We have rules to facilitate building the encyclopedia, therefore a rule may be ignored if sticking to that rule isn't going to help.

Comment by Jimbo:

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Jimbo's exceptional status on Wikipedia

2) Jimbo is the sole editor on Wikipedia who has the authority to intervene outside of the regular process in administrative processes, review ArbCom decisions and if needed, ask ArbCom to review decisions.

Comment by Jimbo:

Comment by Arbitrators:

Well, anyone can ask us to review or reconsider a decision. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:51, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Restrictions do not apply to all pages

3) To allow restricted editors to communicate problems, certain pages are always exempt from the imposed restrictions, Jimbo's talk page is one such page.

Comment by Jimbo:

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

4) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Chelsea Manning ArbCom case

1) This posting by Sceptre on Jimbo's talk page was an important posting to get the wider community involved in the dispute. It however led to Sceptre being inappropriately blocked as posting on Jimbo's talk page should not have been considered to be a violation of her topic ban.

Comment by Jimbo:

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Inappropriate behavior by Admins on the Amanda Knox and Murder of Meredith Kercher pages

2) On the basis of postings on his talk page by banned editors, Jimbo has intervened in a dispute on the Amanda Knox and Murder of Meredith Kercher pages. He has found that the editors were inappropriatly blocked and demanded that the blocks be reversed (e.g. this editor).

Comment by Jimbo:

Comment by Arbitrators:

Could you provide diff's for that? Worm^TT(talk) 10:19, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Count Iblis, I'll do some reading. Worm^TT(talk) 07:30, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

I'll digg up the relevant diffs. The point of this entry is to serve as an example of an intervention by Jimbo that has helped Wikipedia. Here "helping" is understood in the WP:IAR sense (which is why I mention this principle above). Count Iblis (talk) 17:42, 3 September 2014 (UTC). I just found this discussion on Jimbo's talk page. From this link it's not difficult to digg up the other postings by Jimbo and the measures taken. Count Iblis (talk) 22:18, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Template

3) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

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

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposals by User:Neotarf

Proposed principles Cogitations

These do not really rise to the level of "principles"

1) Clue

• Clue is needed to edit Wikipedia.
• More clue is needed to edit Jimbo's page.
• Even more clue is needed to curate Jimbo's page.
  • Most curators/page stalkers are admins, or at least used to be.
  • Should lurk for a while before doing anything.
  • Should understand how it works, how other people post, and how Jimbo usually responds or does not respond.
  • Should curate Jimbo's page to facilitate Jimbo's use, not advance their own POV, which should be done more overtly
  • Only obvious vandalism should be removed, also the people Jimmy has indicated he doesn't want there, which is about 3 people that I know of, who shall remain nameless here in service of WP:DENY.

2) Mr. 2001

• Mr. 2001 is known for paid editing.
• Paid editing is a controversial subject that has many policy facets that have still not been resolved.
• Some of Mr. 2001's edits to Jimbo's page introduce interesting facets of the paid editing issue. These should stand as written; they are useful for discussion and Jimmy usually responds to them, if not, they often inspire other people to insightful comments.
• Some of Mr. 2001's edits challenge Jimbo's official actions and personal life in ways that are personally embarrassing to him. Sometimes Jimmy responds, other times he hats. Jimbo is perfectly capable of handling these, and once discussion has been closed, Mr. 2001 does not pursue an issue. Even Jimbo does not always bat 1000.
• Some of Mr. 2001's comments are off-topic and only serve to derail a thread. These particularly annoy me when it is a thread I care about. Mr. 2001 should not disrupt these threads any more than someone else should disrupt Mr 2001's threads. But these comments should also be allowed to stand; Mr. 2001 does not always bat 1000 either.

3) Junior patroller syndrome

• I first ran into the junior patroller syndrome over a year ago, in a thread that was already a year old when I saw it. A snarky junior patroller provoked an academic who was trying to write a new article, by templating him less than a minute after he started to compose the article, then provoked him into an insult that got the academic blocked. The academic left and never completed the article. The same snarky patroller tried to provoke me with the very same phrases and templates, and had many defenders. After that I met many, many more patrollers. The fate of the academics who have the misfortune to run into them is always a coin toss.
• The patrollers learn their life skills from video games where they get rewards for shooting things down. They then transfer these skills to Wikipedia. They are only supposed to shoot down the enemy, so much energy is expended in re-branding useful editors as enemy--"retarded" and "passive aggressive" are perennial favorites.
• Some characteristics of junior patrollers:
  • Do not believe they are worthy editors, or are good enough to become admins, so they revel in incivility and are oblivious to repeated blocks.
  • Confused about adulthood -- think swearing is a privilege of adults, without understanding appropriate syntax for various occasions
  • Sometimes look for male role models, and mimic them even with inappropriate behavior.
  • Do not understand "social contract", only punishments, so cannot function within IAR; this cognitive ability does not develop until age 17 or so.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

There is no such person as "Mr. 2001," nor is that a party in this case. If your complaint is about a specific IP address, name that IP address. If your complaint is about an individual, name that individual. Carrite (talk) 16:46, 18 September 2014 (UTC) last edit: Carrite (talk) 16:46, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

{{User:Carrite]], this [[3]], [[4]] and [[5]] should help explain why we have this manifesto. That covers quite a bit and sadly yes Neotarf you are still acting passive aggressive. I personally don't think that their drivel has anything to do with any proposed principles but is rather another cowardly attempt to push their agenda. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 20:18, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposals by User:Smallbones

Proposed principles

Banned editors and Wikipedia

1) The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among contributors. Use of the site for other purposes—including, but not limited to, advocacy, propaganda, or furtherance of old feuds—is prohibited. Editors are sometimes site-banned to prevent long-term or on-going disruption and to protect the community. These editors are prohibited from making any edits on Wikipedia and may regain their editing privileges only by a) petitioning the Arbitration Committee, b) requesting a review from the community at WP:AN for a community ban, or c) filing an appeal to Jimmy Wales within two week of the ban being imposed.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Enforcing bans

2) Anybody may revert any edit made by a banned editor without fear of violating the edit warring policy and without being required to answer questions about the reversion. New accounts which engage in the same behavior as a banned editor or blocked account in the same context, and who appear to be editing Wikipedia solely for that purpose, may be similarly reverted. No checkuser or administrator approval is required. Other editors may not undermine or sabotage the reversion and may not serve as a proxy for the banned editor.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

The talk page of User:Jimbo Wales

3) User pages are subject to the same policies as other pages on Wikipedia and do not belong to the user. Other users may remove edits from banned users. By longstanding tradition and practice, however, users are given wide latitude to manage their talk pages as they see fit. By virtue of his continuing special role on Wikipedia, User:Jimbo Wales is given especially wide latitude to manage his talk page.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

User:MyWikiBiz/User:Thekohser harasses many Wikipedians

1) User:MyWikiBiz/User:Thekohser, aka "Mr. 2001", User:Spotting ToU, User:The Rewarder, User:The Receiver, etc.is a longtime banned user who has grossly abused the community's trust from 2006 through to the present day. He attacks Wikipedians on-wiki and off. He admits to using technical measures to avoid detection of his sockpuppeting. He spends much of his time on Wikipedia harassing and trolling User:Jimbo Wales, who states that Mr. 2001's "primary goal here … has been his primary hobby for several years now - cyberstalking and attacking me in every possible venue." Wales has also asked that Mr. 2001's edits be removed from his talk page.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

So what? Can you explain why Jimbo does not revert this person himself, and instead at times carries on conversations with this person? Tarc (talk) 02:59, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Harassment is in the eye of the beholder. One could as easily argue that he provides provocative commentary about important issues in a manner than might cause distress to those who need to feel a bit of distress under the principle of "It's Only The Truth That Hurts." The issue is whether you, or anyone, has the right to be judge, jury, and executioner of the comment of any IP based on their hunch about "duck" sockpuppets rather than following correct procedures for identification of such suspect accounts through SPI. Carrite (talk) 16:43, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Tarc edit wars to sabotage the enforcement of Mr. 2001's site-ban

2) Despite knowing on August 6 that TheKohser/Mr. 2001/Spotting ToU was a banned editor, on August 7 - 8 Tarc edit wars to keep Spotting ToU's signed comment on Jimbo Wales's talk page. Tarc later brags to Spotting ToU that he "pull(ed) off ... 25 reverts in 24 hours on one of the most-watched talkpages of the project. :)"

The following week, at the direction of another Mr. 2001 sock, User:The Rewarder, TARC edit wars again to keep in "The Rewarder's" trolling comment, reverting 3 different editors who removed the comment. Thus Tarc not only sabotaged ban enforcement, but edit warred, and violated WP:PROXYING

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

It takes a bit of chutzpah to lie in a section purporting to be a "finding of fact", but much of Smallbones' Evidence & Workshop seems to come from Bizarro World, so... I learned that "SpottingTOU" was a banned user at 17:58, 14 August 2014, the same date and time that you did. We had our big edit war the week before "The Rewarder" was blocked on 16:38, 14 August 2014, though as a disruptive troll account, not as a sock of any other editor. To make claims that I "sabotaged" anything is just flat-out bogus; I reversed, repeatedly, the attempts to re move this user's posts, as it was my belief that that was not the right thing for Smallbones to do. I at no time violated proxying rules; I took advice given to me after the first revert spat that if one restores the content of a banned user, then one "takes ownership" of said content. Since I am neither banned from this project or banned from Jimbo's talk page, those 3 editors Smallbones mentions had no standing to revert content that was now "mine".

Again I point out though that Smallbones went wrong on two fronts in all of this; #1 was removing the comments of an editor he only suspected was a banned user, and #2 that even if it was a banned editor, others are given latitude to govern their talk pages as they see fit...Jimbo's doubly so, given his status.

My reverting 25+ times was wrong, I can admit that. When will Smallbones own up to his wrongdoing? Tarc (talk) 03:18, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

There is no such person as "Mr. 2001." Nor is that a party in this case. Who the hell are you talking about? Carrite (talk) 16:38, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

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

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposals by User:Example 1

Proposed principles

Template

1) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

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

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposals by User:Example 2

Proposed principles

Template

1) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

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

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposals by User:Example 3

Proposed principles

Template

1) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

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

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposals by User:Example 4

Proposed principles

Template

1) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

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

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Analysis of evidence

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

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

General discussion

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others: