SlimVirgin (talk | contribs) |
|||
Line 41: | Line 41: | ||
::::::PR messed up with some citing, Jay messed up and thought he was adding false sources into an article and lost patience and took it to AN/I, it went to CN, PR got blocked, there's no consensus for the block to go ahead now, so lets close, move on and allow everyone to get on with their lives and PR and be properly unblocked. If people need it - [[WP:DR|heres the link they might need]] - no arbitration. [[User:Ryan Postlethwaite|'''<font color="#000088">Ry<font color="#220066">an<font color="#550044"> P<font color="#770022">os<font color="#aa0000">tl</font>et</font>hw</font>ai</font>te</font>''']] 20:24, 21 May 2007 (UTC) |
::::::PR messed up with some citing, Jay messed up and thought he was adding false sources into an article and lost patience and took it to AN/I, it went to CN, PR got blocked, there's no consensus for the block to go ahead now, so lets close, move on and allow everyone to get on with their lives and PR and be properly unblocked. If people need it - [[WP:DR|heres the link they might need]] - no arbitration. [[User:Ryan Postlethwaite|'''<font color="#000088">Ry<font color="#220066">an<font color="#550044"> P<font color="#770022">os<font color="#aa0000">tl</font>et</font>hw</font>ai</font>te</font>''']] 20:24, 21 May 2007 (UTC) |
||
:::::::It'd be nice if Jay withdrew the accusation that PR "copied his views and references from the Holocaust denial group the Institute for Historical Review". --[[User:Coroebus|Coroebus]] 20:38, 21 May 2007 (UTC) |
:::::::It'd be nice if Jay withdrew the accusation that PR "copied his views and references from the Holocaust denial group the Institute for Historical Review". --[[User:Coroebus|Coroebus]] 20:38, 21 May 2007 (UTC) |
||
::::::Kendrick, you want to "go forward" so you can use this case as a platform to attack Jay. I had little or nothing to do with PR, but my recollection is that he added his own opinions to articles, and constantly abused other editors. Even you told him he was out of order, Kendrick, and you've supported other disruptive editors because they were anti-Zionist (e.g. the [[User:Jayjg/DAE|Disruptive Apartheid editor]]), so PR must have been seriously abusive for you to say: "Geez PR, can you please take your foot out of your mouth and try better next time? Your edits to articles aren't terrible, but you have to do something about all the anti-Zionist rants ..." [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3APalestineRemembered&diff=97973033&oldid=97756445] There's no sense in misusing the dispute resolution in this way to discuss a lack of consensus to block an editor, just so that certain others can get their digs in about Jay. It's a waste of everyone's time, and it's actually making the attackers look bad, not Jay. [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]] <sup><font color="Purple">[[User_talk:SlimVirgin|(talk)]]</font></sup> 20:40, 21 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
===Template=== |
===Template=== |
Revision as of 20:40, 21 May 2007
This is a page for working on arbitration decisions. The arbitrators, parties to the case, and other editors may draft proposals and post them to this page for review and comments. Proposals may include proposed general principles, findings of fact, remedies, and enforcement provisions—the same format as is used in Arbitration Committee decisions. The bottom of the page may be used for overall analysis of the /Evidence and for general discussion of the case.
Any user may edit this workshop page. Please sign all suggestions and comments. Arbitrators will place proposed items they believe should be part of the final decision on the /Proposed decision page, which only arbitrators may edit, for voting.
Motions and requests by the parties
PalestineRemembered block fully lifted
1) PalestineRemembered (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)'s block is lifted for the duration of the case and he is free to edit as desired. Ryan Postlethwaite 11:40, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
- Proposed. firstly, there's serious doubts as to whether he should have been blocked in the first place, secondally, he's currently only able to edit ArbCom pages, thirdly, due to the current backlog, this is likely to take a while which isn't fair to PalestineRemembered as it's more than likely this is going to end up with parole or an admonishment. Ryan Postlethwaite 11:40, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
- Agreed. Tying his hands when the initial proposal for this latest block has been proven to have been based on false information and further, even if true, would have constituted only the violation of guideline is no reason to continue to prevent him from making edits. Further, the stigma of the block is being compounded by overzealous admins who recently just fully blocked him again (even from participating in arbcomm) for an alleged violation of the conditions of this latest block which restrict him to discussing his case on a limited number of pages. This has got to stop. Tiamut 11:47, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
- The block that he just received was a good block considering the restrictions that are currently in place on his editing - this is what I am trying to remove though. Ryan Postlethwaite 14:55, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
- I believe Tiamut is referring to the current defacto block (as originally implemented during the CSN). I don't think anyone is questioning the actions of the blocking admin from yesterday. Mark Chovain 01:17, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- I should correct my statements above. Phaedriel was within the letter of things to effect the block she did. I'm just quite shocked by the revelations around PR's block history. I hadn't been following his case before. I know admins cannot look into every detail before making a decision, but considering the growing consensus surrounding the idea that the latest block proposed by Jayjg was misplaced, the restrictions on PR shouldn't be that heavily enforced, particularly when all he did was post about his case. I should mention I feel partially responsible having gone ahead and posted evidence before clearing it with Mark Chovain. PR asked me to consider removing it and I told him I would wait for Mark Chovain's advice. Anyway, the point is that that statement of mine there is little "overzealous" in itself. My apologies (and rather lengthy explanation) :)Tiamut 01:26, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- I believe Tiamut is referring to the current defacto block (as originally implemented during the CSN). I don't think anyone is questioning the actions of the blocking admin from yesterday. Mark Chovain 01:17, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- The block that he just received was a good block considering the restrictions that are currently in place on his editing - this is what I am trying to remove though. Ryan Postlethwaite 14:55, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
- Agreed. Tying his hands when the initial proposal for this latest block has been proven to have been based on false information and further, even if true, would have constituted only the violation of guideline is no reason to continue to prevent him from making edits. Further, the stigma of the block is being compounded by overzealous admins who recently just fully blocked him again (even from participating in arbcomm) for an alleged violation of the conditions of this latest block which restrict him to discussing his case on a limited number of pages. This has got to stop. Tiamut 11:47, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
- Proposed. firstly, there's serious doubts as to whether he should have been blocked in the first place, secondally, he's currently only able to edit ArbCom pages, thirdly, due to the current backlog, this is likely to take a while which isn't fair to PalestineRemembered as it's more than likely this is going to end up with parole or an admonishment. Ryan Postlethwaite 11:40, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
- Support I can see see no reason for this block. To prevent what? The proposed community ban, which was based upon a good faith but erroneous charge, failed. Thus, PR should be unblocked without predudice, and this case dismissed.Proabivouac 11:20, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Arbitration is closed
2) This arbitration case is closed with immediate effect, all sides are advised to seek additional dispute resolution before bringing this back to arbitration.
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
- Proposed. Seriously, this is a complete waste of time, we can handle this - someone file an RfC if they really want something doing here, but I fail to see the point of this carrying on. No-ones going to get banned, no-ones going to get admonished and it seems highly likely that the arbitration committee will either find nothing at all, or find something minor for the sake of doing so. As I said on the talk page, let's kick this into touch at the moment - it's way too premature. Ryan Postlethwaite 18:14, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- Admitidely, PR is still technically blocked (only able to edit ArbCom pages) - but this can be rectified, as soon as it closes he can be free to edit how he wants, and participate in his RfC if people really want to take it further. There's now no consensus to ban/block him, so let's get on with more important things. Ryan Postlethwaite 18:17, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- I support this proposal. An admin posted a request for input on AN/I and that input was given. Halfway through the process, someone prematurely filed this RfAr. If there are still issues to be resolved, we should use the dispute resolution process, although I can't even see what those issues would be. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:19, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose. The RfAr was appropriate and correctly timed; the discussion had become a straightforward partisan brawl. There are clearly still issues to be resolved, in particular the strong evidence that the initial banning proposal was based on a mistaken assumption. It would be preferable if both parties could agree on an equitable solution (PR to admit error in miscitation, Jay to admit an erroneous accusation and withdraw it) so that this arbitration can be discontinued. However, discontinuing without an agreement would leave the issues outstanding and would do nothing to encourage either PR or Jay to work more constructively with each other in future. The likelihood of an arbitration finding fault on both sides should encourage them to find a mutually acceptable solution rather than finding themselves being censured for their actions. -- ChrisO 18:59, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- (Added) If Jay was careless enough to make a potentially libelous public accusation without a shred of hard evidence, in a bid to ban an editor with an opposing POV, why shouldn't he be admonished? It's a very serious error of judgment. -- ChrisO 19:23, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- The claim was not "potentially libelous," so let's not up the ante. Imagine the chaos if we were to start an ArbCom case every time something factually incorrect was said about another person; Chris, you've said things about me that are false, so I could bring a case against you.
- It seems to me that certain people are just using this as a platform to attack Jay, even though all he did was ask for input on AN/I, which is what admins are supposed to do when they have concerns. Let's face it, PR is not exactly a good editor. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:38, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- It's exactly nebulous claims like people claiming "PR is not exactly a good editor" which are as good a reason as any to go forward. Just the way even his second and third block proposals were titled The return of PalestineRemembered and PalestineRemembered again as if he were some endlessly problematic editor have been prejudicial, when, still, no one have presented any diffs as evidence to support such an idea. -- Kendrick7talk 20:11, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- PR messed up with some citing, Jay messed up and thought he was adding false sources into an article and lost patience and took it to AN/I, it went to CN, PR got blocked, there's no consensus for the block to go ahead now, so lets close, move on and allow everyone to get on with their lives and PR and be properly unblocked. If people need it - heres the link they might need - no arbitration. Ryan Postlethwaite 20:24, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- It'd be nice if Jay withdrew the accusation that PR "copied his views and references from the Holocaust denial group the Institute for Historical Review". --Coroebus 20:38, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- Kendrick, you want to "go forward" so you can use this case as a platform to attack Jay. I had little or nothing to do with PR, but my recollection is that he added his own opinions to articles, and constantly abused other editors. Even you told him he was out of order, Kendrick, and you've supported other disruptive editors because they were anti-Zionist (e.g. the Disruptive Apartheid editor), so PR must have been seriously abusive for you to say: "Geez PR, can you please take your foot out of your mouth and try better next time? Your edits to articles aren't terrible, but you have to do something about all the anti-Zionist rants ..." [1] There's no sense in misusing the dispute resolution in this way to discuss a lack of consensus to block an editor, just so that certain others can get their digs in about Jay. It's a waste of everyone's time, and it's actually making the attackers look bad, not Jay. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:40, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- PR messed up with some citing, Jay messed up and thought he was adding false sources into an article and lost patience and took it to AN/I, it went to CN, PR got blocked, there's no consensus for the block to go ahead now, so lets close, move on and allow everyone to get on with their lives and PR and be properly unblocked. If people need it - heres the link they might need - no arbitration. Ryan Postlethwaite 20:24, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- It's exactly nebulous claims like people claiming "PR is not exactly a good editor" which are as good a reason as any to go forward. Just the way even his second and third block proposals were titled The return of PalestineRemembered and PalestineRemembered again as if he were some endlessly problematic editor have been prejudicial, when, still, no one have presented any diffs as evidence to support such an idea. -- Kendrick7talk 20:11, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- (Added) If Jay was careless enough to make a potentially libelous public accusation without a shred of hard evidence, in a bid to ban an editor with an opposing POV, why shouldn't he be admonished? It's a very serious error of judgment. -- ChrisO 19:23, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
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
Proposed final decision
Proposed principles
Community bans
1) Community bans are enacted where a user has exhausted the community's patience to the point where he or she has been indefinitely blocked by an administrator—and no one is willing to unblock them. If there is not a strong consensus for a ban, then it should not be enforced.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
- Proposed. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:45, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
- Right this I assume means that community bans are not a vote correct? It is useless to speak about percentages, if uninvolved editors in good standing object to a ban, then its not time to ban. —— Eagle101Need help? 23:46, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
- Community bans have never been a vote. The key point is that the user "has been indefinitely blocked by an administrator — and no one is willing to unblock them". In this particular case, no ban was in force - Jayjg was soliciting a ban, not implementing one. Strictly speaking, the discussion was a misuse of the community sanctions noticeboard (though it's not Jay's fault, since he originally posted his ban request to WP:AN/I and it got moved to the CN by someone else). -- ChrisO 23:22, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
- Right this I assume means that community bans are not a vote correct? It is useless to speak about percentages, if uninvolved editors in good standing object to a ban, then its not time to ban. —— Eagle101Need help? 23:46, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
- Proposed. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:45, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Citing sources
2) It is improper to copy a citation from an intermediate source without making clear that you saw only that intermediate source.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
- Proposed. The wording is taken directly from WP:CITE#Say where you got it. -- ChrisO 23:30, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
- This could be a little stronger. As WP:CITE#Say where you got it says, one should actually cite the intermediate source. I wonder how this can become an enforceable policy rather than just a guideline as WP:CITE seems to make it. Having an ArbCom ruling would be a start, but somehow this should get into an official policy page. With the status of WP:ATTR still up in the air, where should it go? --Zerotalk 12:21, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Evidentiary basis for banning
3) Proposed and enacted bans must be based on well-documented evidence of misconduct.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- I suspect the casework for this is thin, if only because this business at WP:CN is such a new development. There's really no agreed policy for such a thing, whatever certain partisans have argued. Quickpolls, as I recall, never claimed to "ban" anybody. The whole idea behind a community ban was that no-one could forsee undoing the block, which was obviously not the case here. Complicated cases went to the Arbitration Committee, who had the time and patience to review the evidence. Even Arbcom doesn't "ban" longer than one year most of the time. Mackensen (talk) 15:05, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
- Proposed. A very basic principle, though surprisingly enough it doesn't seem to be listed in Wikipedia:Arbitration policy/Past decisions. Maybe an arbitrator can provide guidance on whether this has already been established? -- ChrisO 23:42, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Use of single purpose accounts
4) The use of a single-purpose account for a given class of edits is permitted. However, it does not give an editor free rein to use that account abusively.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
- Proposed, based closely on wording in Wikipedia:Arbitration policy/Past decisions#Sockpuppets (and related principles). The key principle here is that SPAs should not be used abusively. See also Wikipedia:Single-purpose account. -- ChrisO 08:44, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
- Alternate accounts should not be used either to give the impression that there is more support for a position than actually exists, or to avoid the scrutiny of other editors by ensuring you leave no audit trail. WP:SOCK says:
- Proposed, based closely on wording in Wikipedia:Arbitration policy/Past decisions#Sockpuppets (and related principles). The key principle here is that SPAs should not be used abusively. See also Wikipedia:Single-purpose account. -- ChrisO 08:44, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Using sock puppet accounts to split your contributions history means that other editors can't detect patterns in your contributions. While it may be legitimate to do this from time to time (for example, by creating a special account to make edits that might serve to identify you in real life or to avoid harassment), it is a violation of this policy to create multiple accounts in order to confuse or deceive editors who may have a legitimate interest in tracking your contributions.
- If PR did this, then he's in violation of the policy, which means the account should be indefblocked, and the main account blocked at the discretion of the blocking admin. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:05, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Template
5) {text of proposed principle}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
6) {text of proposed principle}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
7) {text of proposed principle}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Proposed findings of fact
The Community ban discussion failed to reach a consensus
1) Despite initial support, the community ban discussion failed to reach a consensus.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
- Proposed. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:51, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
- I agree here, though there was an attempt to close this as a "speedy ban" (my term) something less then 2 hours after it was opened. Thats not nearly enough time to dig for evidence. —— Eagle101Need help? 23:48, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
- I agree with this. By my count, there were 28 for a ban, 17 against, and three unclear. And this was a very dubious result, because the initial charge (of copying from a holocaust denial website) was totally unfounded and false. I don't see how this can be interpreted as community support for an indefinite ban. RolandR 00:51, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
- Right, but bans are not a vote, if upstanding editors that are not involved in the dispute object to the ban, it should not be done. (Also keep in mind that a ban is only an indef block that no other admin will undo) :) —— Eagle101Need help? 01:58, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
- Agree. No need for counting as there was no evidence for the charges. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 01:57, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
- I agree with this. By my count, there were 28 for a ban, 17 against, and three unclear. And this was a very dubious result, because the initial charge (of copying from a holocaust denial website) was totally unfounded and false. I don't see how this can be interpreted as community support for an indefinite ban. RolandR 00:51, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Locus of dispute
2) The locus of this dispute is the sourcing of a quote from the Auckland Evening Star newspaper.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
- Proposed. -- ChrisO 07:40, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Miscitation of source
3) In editing Zionist political violence PalestineRemembered erroneously cited a quotation from the Auckland Evening Star as coming from the original source, but failed to note that he had obtained the quotation from a secondary source.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
- Proposed. PR has already admitted this, I believe. -- ChrisO 23:28, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Controversy over source
4) In proposing a community ban of PalestineRemembered, Jayjg asserted that PalestineRemembered had obtained the disputed quotation from a Holocaust denial website. In his defence, PalestineRemembered asserted that he had obtained the quotation from a mainstream work of scholarship published in 1989.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
- Proposed. This reflects the arguments and counter-arguments that have been put forward. -- ChrisO 07:52, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Evidentiary problems
5) Jayjg's initial proposal for a community ban presented no evidence that PalestineRemembered had used the Holocaust denial website as his source. No effort was made to verify this assertion and the possibility that other sources existed was not addressed.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
- Proposed. See my comments on the Evidence page. -- ChrisO 23:35, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Dispute resolution not undertaken
6) Jayjg and PalestineRemembered did not discuss the disputed quotation prior to the community ban proposal, and dispute resolution was not undertaken.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
- Proposed, based on the established sequence of events. -- ChrisO 07:59, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Single-purpose account
7) PalestineRemembered is a self-acknowledged single-purpose account created for the purpose of editing articles relating to the Arab-Israeli conflict, a particularly contentious topic area.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
- Proposed. Should be uncontroversial, nobody disputes this. -- ChrisO 08:12, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
- Does this mean he's a sockpuppet of another editor? SlimVirgin (talk) 04:07, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- I don't believe there is any subtext here. The proposed finding is only that his account is used for editing a narrow range of contentious articles; nothing more. If anyone wants to claim that PR is a sockpuppet, then that will need to be done separately, and would require a completely different set of evidence. I don't think anyone has anything to gain by mincing words or overloading meanings. Mark Chovain 04:42, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- Does this mean he's a sockpuppet of another editor? SlimVirgin (talk) 04:07, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- Proposed. Should be uncontroversial, nobody disputes this. -- ChrisO 08:12, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
- If he's not a sockpuppet, what's the point of this finding, and what's the meaning of "self-acknowledged"? SlimVirgin (talk) 19:58, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- The SPA issue is a red herring. There are numerous SPAs on Israel-Palestine pages. Some have been at it for years and have even risen to the level of admins. PR has only been editing for a few months, and we really don't know what sort of range of interests he may or may not develop. That's his business, not that of Arbcom. Many editors begin by editing almost obsessively in a particular area, and then spiral outward from there. Maybe he will, maybe he won't, but it's beside the point. The only reason the SPA issue even came into the discussion is because several editors in the CS-discussion were under the erroneous impression that editing as an SPA was a bannable offense, whereas in fact it's specifically allowed. The SPA issue is relevant only insofar as it points to yet another way in which PR has been singled out.--G-Dett 13:29, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Contentious editing
8) PalestineRemembered has a history of contentious editing and has been blocked on three previous occasions in the past seven months.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- I'd like to see this broken into two separate points. The claim of "a history of contentious editing" is subjective, should be quantified, and needs substantial evidence. The claim of three blocks is objective. While these are clearly related, the points are likely to be discussed in very different ways. Mark Chovain 10:19, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
- I second that very well articulated proposal. Tiamut 10:32, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
- I'd like to see this broken into two separate points. The claim of "a history of contentious editing" is subjective, should be quantified, and needs substantial evidence. The claim of three blocks is objective. While these are clearly related, the points are likely to be discussed in very different ways. Mark Chovain 10:19, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment by others:
- Proposed. -- ChrisO 08:12, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Template
9) {text of proposed finding of fact}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
10) {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.
PalestineRemembered admonished
1) PalestineRemembered is admonished for breaching the citation guidelines, and is urged to take more care in future when citing sources.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
- Proposed. This appears to be proportionate to the admitted offence. -- ChrisO 07:39, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Jayjg admonished
2) Jayjg is admonished for proposing a community ban without a sound basis in evidence, and is urged to take more care in future when taking such actions.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
- Proposed. Jay's inexplicable carelessness in initiating this controversy on the basis of an unverified assumption needs to be acknowledged. We need to make it clear as a matter of policy that bans must be imposed on the basis of hard evidence, not unverified assumptions. -- ChrisO 07:39, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Dispute resolution advised
3) PalestineRemembered and Jayjg are advised to engage in calm discussion and the use of dispute resolution when in conflict.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
- Proposed, based on a nearly identical remedy in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Kosovo. -- ChrisO 07:39, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Template
4) {text of proposed remedy}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
5) {text of proposed remedy}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
6) {text of proposed remedy}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
7) {text of proposed remedy}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
8) {text of proposed remedy}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
9) {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:
Template
3) {text of proposed enforcement}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
4) {text of proposed enforcement}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
5) {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: