Revision as of 22:11, 1 May 2009

Misplaced Pages Arbitration
About arbitrationTalk Arbitration policy (CU/OS) Guide to arbitration Noticeboard + Talk Search archived proceedings Ban appealsReport
Open proceedings All open requests Case requests Clarification and Amendment requests Arbitrator motion requests Enforcement requests
Active sanctions Contentious topics (Log) General sanctions Editor sanctions
Arbitration Committee Discuss+ Contact Members Procedures ElectionsTalk History Clerks+ Talk Clerk procedures Conflict of interest reports
Audit Talk StatisticsTalk Reports (pre-2016)
Track related changes
v t e

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 and clerks may edit, for voting, clarification as well as implementation purposes.

Motions and requests by the parties

Request to narrow initial focus

1)Please act to narrow the focus of this arbitration, at least initially, to the most urgent and weighty issue presented, administrative recusal.

Comment by Arbitrators:

My review of the evidence to date has not led me to question my initial view, expressed at the acceptance stage, that there is thin fodder for an arbitration case here. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:13, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

This case became qualified through a focused RfC, Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/JzG 3, on the topic of alleged failure to recuse when involved, and the evidence presented was limited to that issue. Whether or not JzG was "correct" in the actions was moot, and I acted (with some success) to prevent the RfC from becoming a laundry list of complaints against JzG. However, a majority of respondents in the RfC, which should be reviewed, did treat it as a content dispute and alleged misbehavior on my part. Nevertheless, WP:DR was not followed with respect to my alleged misbehavior, and that matter would ordinarily not be ripe for examination by ArbComm. It is obvious that if ArbComm determines that JzG did not violate policy, then my dispute was disruptive and my behavior would then be a proper topic for immediate examination. However, if JzG did violate policy, and if my behavior was within bounds as a following of WP:DR, then immature examination of my behavior, searching it for flaws, would be, in itself, a chilling example deterring others from similarly following WP:DR, and we need more of that following, not less. Hence I request the Committee to narrow the focus of this case, at least initially, to JzG's actions as an administrator, allowing, pending resolution of that issue, normal process to address my own errors, such as they may be. If the Committee does this, I need not answer all the allegations and irrelevant false charges being made on the Evidence page, knowing that, later, I would have an opportunity to address them if they do not become moot. There is some discussion of this at Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for arbitration/Abd and JzG/Workshop#Possible motion to narrow focus of this case.--Abd (talk) 17:43, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I think that Abd's and JzG's actions each need to stand on their own. Even if Abd's accusations prove incorrect, that does not mean Abd has done wrong. On the other hand, if JzG is found to have misused tools, that does not exonerate Abd. There are possible outcomes where both are right or both are wrong. Jehochman 02:31, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Jehochman. Unfortunately, I don't see any other support appearing for the concept of disentangling the issues. There is no argument with the decision of the arbitrators to examine the conduct of all parties; the question is only one of sequence. A person is not charged with frivolous litgation until after the original cause of action has been found to be baseless. We don't prosecute someone for false fire alarm until we first check to see if there is a fire, and we don't, to save time, do both at once. I know what I was suggesting, I know that it would simplify process, and I also know that Misplaced Pages does things the hard way, but it's really up to ArbComm. My experience tells me that when I make a motion and nobody seconds it, shut up and move on, it doesn't matter how right I think I am. --Abd (talk) 04:02, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Fritzpoll has not accurately reported my position. It is that the issue of JzG's alleged policy violations and my alleged misbehavior are separate issues, and only related in one direction. JzG's behavior was not with respect to me (or my interests, I was totally uninvolved at the time). My behavior was with respect to his, and is the subject of evidence and comment here only because that has been raised as a kind of defense of JzG, and as a coat-rack for other disputes. Hence whether or not my behavior was justified and appropriate is, at least partially, dependent on whether or not there were policy violations of substance. It's true, my behavior is ultimately an independent question, except that if, say, immediately before the filing of this RfAr, JzG had acknowledged the error and promised not to repeat it, it is nearly certain that any dispute over my behavior would be resolved short of arbitration, probably before RfC. Jehochman can testify that I seek consensus and that I use DR properly, because I did it with him, and you can see the positive working relationship that developed from it. The allegations re my behavior are immature for AC, not having been the subject of an RfC, and not being an emergency. (If they are an emergency, then ordinary recourse for disruption is available, I do not interpret that I have a free pass because this is at ArbComm, and, further, ArbComm could issue an injunction.) Similarly, I would not have raised issues regarding the usage of the blacklist by other administrators, because, again, it seems consensus is within reach though ordinary process and an ArbComm ruling not necessary at this time.

In addition, I don't raise this issue just for myself, but as a general issue about factors that cause arbitrations to become far more disruptive than necessary. If A/C confined itself to narrow questions, one at a time, and acted to restrict expansion of cases (quickly remanding immature disputes back to the community), it would become far more efficient, taking advantage of what is well-known in dispute resolution off-wiki. More cases, perhaps (though not many more), but faster resolution, by far. It's tempting to try to resolve multiple issues at once, but centuries of experience show that this is far less efficient and far less likely to find true consensus. I'd drop the request, here, completely, except that there has been so much comment that I can't. In ordinary deliberative process, no motion is debated until there is a second. For ArbComm to adopt the practice of prohibiting debate on a motion, here, unless the motion is seconded, a great deal of wasted time would be avoided. Nobody seconded my motion, and were I chair, I'd rule it failed for lack of a second, and it would be collapsed as closed for that reason. We'd have been done with it in quickly. Maybe there should be a process chair for ArbComm procedure, perhaps appointed by the committee, with rulings of the chair appealable for immediate determination without debate by the committee. I.e., what anyone here who has experience with real world consensus and deliberative process would see as normal. (Clerks sort of do this, but with no guidance on the point I've raised.)

So, I'm going to request that a clerk, absent objection, i.e., the appearance of a second, close and collapse this motion as having failed for lack of a second, and consider doing that with others. (It's reversible, should anyone later decide to support such a motion.) Be bold. --Abd (talk) 16:14, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

"Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain." This is just as much about Abd's ongoing incivility, wikihounding and general disruptive behavior as it is about JzG's long past recusals or lack thereof. Hipocrite (talk) 17:46, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I see where Abd is coming from with this, but don't think the case will go any faster or be any more efficient a use of time if it is split into two. Fritzpoll (talk) 20:19, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Six of the 11 accepting arbs indicated an expilict intent to examine the actions of all parties (by my rough count). It's a little late for one of the parties to suggest their own actions shouldn't be considered until the other party has been examined. Especially since the suggesting party has used every possible avenue to have the "other" party examined and censured leading up to this case. Franamax (talk) 01:08, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Follow up: I think the problem here is that a finding of wrongdoing by JzG does not imply a specific finding (or lack thereof) with regards to Abd. JzG can have been found to have done something wrong and Abd could be sanctioned for having approached it inappropriately. I think Abd views this case as having two possible combinations of findings: (JzG = wrong, Abd = right) or (JzG = right, Abd = wrong). In reality, it is possible for both parties to be right or both parties to be wrong (crudely speaking) and so it is of greater efficiency to examine the parties together, when the evidence is necessarily overlapping. Abd is not being "prosecuted" for frivolous litigation, but his behaviour is being examined in how the complaint was pursued. Fritzpoll (talk) 08:51, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

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

Proposed final decision

Proposals by Jehochman

Proposed principles

Policy and point of view

1) Verifiability, Neutral point of view, No original research, and What Misplaced Pages is not are core policies. They are not points of view.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

We welcome editors with different points of view. We do not welcome editors who persistently violate content policies. There are claims that Guy was involved because of his efforts to enforce these policies. Jehochman 10:22, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Oppose. Maybe I just don't get it. Who said they were points of view? Why does this need to be said? If there were specific application shown, maybe. Guy claimed reliance on policies, often, but his understanding of how to apply them was colored by his involvement. No allegation has been made by me of bad faith; he clearly believes that our policies would prohibit, for example, any linking whatever, for whatever purpose, to lenr-canr.org, and he even edit warred in an attempt to prevent it after we managed to get one page whitelisted. However, that same assumption of good faith requires me to consider that he hasn't been competent to judge when to recuse or not, and recusal when involved is also a policy. Somebody look up the page please! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abd (talk • contribs)

Comment by others:

Just wanted to point out that NOT is NOT a 'core' policy, at least by most people's definitions. It's a policy, but not one we die by, like V, NPOV, and NOR. rootology (C)(T) 01:09, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Oppose. Contradicts WP:NPOV, which says "As the name suggests, the neutral point of view is a point of view, not the absence or elimination of viewpoints". It's also unclear what the relevance is to this case. It's very common for content disputes to revolve around different interpretations of how to apply content policies in specific situations. Believing that one is enforcing a content policy is not normally an excuse for editwarring, for example, regardless of whether a later majority vote or consensus decision agrees with your interpretation or not. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 15:28, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Dispute resolution

2) Dispute resolution is for resolving disagreements. It may not be used to intimidate, pressure or wear down an opponent.

2.1) Dispute resolution is for good faith attempts to resolve disagreements. It may not be used to intimidate, pressure or wear down an opponent. Likewise, editors may not exert improper influence, such as threatening blocks or bans, to deter others from making legitimate dispute resolution requests.

2.2) Dispute resolution is a process for resolving disagreements over article content or editorial behavior. It requires the same civility standards as every other action on Misplaced Pages and should not be abused to make personal attacks. Users who are misusing this process as a way to intimidate, pressure or wear down one or more editors may be sanctioned. Likewise, editors may not exert improper influence, such as threatening blocks or bans, to deter others from making legitimate dispute resolution requests.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Necessary because there are allegations that WP:DR may have been gamed. Whether or not this happened, it is important to state as a principal that WP:DR may not be abused as a WP:BATTLE tactic. Jehochman 10:22, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I added 2.2 to synthesize what I'd seen so far. I'm still not confident it's complete. DR hasn't been used with me, mostly, so I don't see it from that side; editors not infrequently warn me, complain about me, but don't take the next step of involving a third editor, especially of involving someone neutral. In the other direction, I've seen an RfC filed by admins on an editor when, clearly, the goal from the beginning wasn't to develop consensus but to ban the editor, with whom they were in content conflict, and simply to show a basis for that. Something I'd really like to see this RfAr encourage is for WP:DR to be followed by the book and by the intent of it. It works, usually, even at a quite low level, and it only fails when positions are entrenched, in which case escalation becomes necessary. --Abd (talk) 01:50, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Elemental but too vague. I think it should rather be expanded, maybe like this:

Dispute resolution is a process for resolving disagreements over an article's content. It requires the same civility standards as every other action on Misplaced Pages and should not be abused to make personal attacks. Users who are misusing this process as a way to intimidate, pressure or wear down one or more editors who hold different views can and will be sanctioned accordingly.

Thoughts? Regards SoWhy 20:40, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Normally, WP:BATTLE is in part defined as a failure to use proper DR channels. The wording here is very vague and eminently gameable; we may expect many disruptive editors to invoke it, if it becomes part of the decision. Durova 23:59, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

In my experience, WP:BATTLE has included instances when people used WP:DR with no intention of actually resolving a dispute. They were trying to get their opponents sanctioned, blocked or banned, by whatever means were available. See also vexatious litigation. Jehochman 00:27, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

The dispute resolution used here was conduct RfC, initiated because Abd saw a need for recusal with regard to the spam blacklist. Considering that within about the last day a site was removed from the spam blacklist by consensus, and that JzG himself agreed during RFAR that he probably ought to have recused, I am curious to know how this case might be distinguishable from normal and proper use of dispute resolution. What is vexatious about this? Durova 00:38, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

You're jumping ahead. This is a principal, not a finding of fact. Various people have alleged vexatious litigation. We should first agree to the principal that vexatious litigation is a bad thing. Then we can look at the evidence and see if that happened, or not, and explain why or why not. This is how we can get people on both sides to agree, hopefully. I have done a very large amount of negotiating in real life and have a pretty good concept of how to get to "yes". Jehochman 00:41, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Proposed principle: the sky is blue. How is that or this relevant to this case? Durova 00:47, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Where I am, the sky is black. Shall we edit war over it? Wishing you a beautiful sunset, Jehochman 00:55, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

The strange thing is you begin posting workshop proposals a day after the case opens before one of the two principal named parties has presented evidence, and then call the response to your proposals premature. Durova 01:03, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Hows about Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages is not about winning? Is that the idea you're after? rootology (C)(T) 01:10, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I really like that. Dispute resolution is not a competitive sport. Jehochman 01:20, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Both the versions proposed by Jehochman and SoWhy refer to misuse of the DR process by intimidation and pressure. However, as Durova has noted, it is proper for some disputes to escalate through the process, and this is sometimes met with accusations this escalation is actually inappropriate pressure, wikilawyering or battling. I think Jehochman is right that a pinciple noting the inappropriateness of vexatious litigation is needed; however, recognition is also needed that attempts to intimidate people into dropping a case or not escalating to the next step in DR is just as wrong. The mere fact that someone has moved to the next stage of DR is not a reasonable basis for criticism. EdChem (talk) 14:07, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

How about 2.1? There are allegations in this case that improper influences were exerted to prevent DR from moving forward. Jehochman 14:46, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I think 2.1 is a substantial improvement... it recognises both types of abuses - and I think there are allegations of both in this case. EdChem (talk) 14:58, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I haven't kept it in mind, but there were instances of threats that I'd be sanctioned if I continued. JzG, though, only wrote something like this once, as I recall. Nothing I'd bring up. I suppose I could look it up if someone thinks it relevant. The RfC was filled with comments that I should be banned, basically for pursuing WP:DR, though of course it wasn't stated that way. Rather, as I recall, it was for "disruption," for "beating a dead horse," for harassing JzG, or for unrelated offenses. Hey! that dead horse just got up and ran out the barn door! (newenergytimes removed from the blacklist, lenr-canr.org has one whitelisting and really is a very similar situation to lenr-canr.org, so one-and-a half down, a few to go. None of the other issues have been presented for DR resolution beyond initial comment. --Abd (talk) 01:39, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Oppose. 2.1 is an improvement over 2, but I have concerns about this sentence: "It may not be used to intimidate, pressure or wear down an opponent." Giving someone escalating warnings, then applying sanctions or soliciting opinions from other users, with the ultimate goal of persuading the person to change their behaviour to conform to a policy or guideline, could be described as "wearing down" the person, and the use or warning of use of sanctions could be described as "intimidating", but such actions are a normal and necessary part of wikiinteraction. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 15:28, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

The operative term is opponent. One should not be sanctioning an opponent. If you come into a situation as uninvolved, you are free to warn or sanction an editor as required to protect the project from disruption. I am sure the wording could be improved. Please propose something, Coppertwig. Jehochman 23:24, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

CommentThis comes across as disingenuous (I know, AGF etc). You've proposed two principles. The first one you pretty much explicitly say is intended to move things towards your preferred conclusion (Guy is only seen as involved because of his darling efforts to enforce policy). The second one you then indignantly defend as just being a principle when people naturally see it as another step towards your desired conclusion. You say you have done a lot of negotiating in real life but is that really how you find it works - you propose a set of principles on the basis that the first one is directed towards exonerating party A and the second one is just setting out that if party B did what he's accused of then that would be BAD (let's agree that before discussing whether he did it...). Do you think that in negotiations outside of Misplaced Pages that party B would tend to view that as antagonistic? Why not start by saying how inappropriate it would be to make admin actions when involve in a content dispute, because Guy's accused of that? Don't get me wrong, you're allowed to be partisan I'm sure, but I don't think jumping backwards and fowards between partisan advocate and neutral negotiator is going to work. (disclaimer, not a party, yes a busy body, no account etc. etc. But that doesn't affect the point I'm making) 87.254.80.250 (talk) 19:04, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Using tools while involved is inconsistent with 2.1, at least as I read it. It is likely to be intimidatory. It certainly is using improper influence. And, it is questionable whether such an action is taken in good faith. However, I would agree that the principle that using tools while involved is inappropriate, potentially sanctionable, and that it invites additional scrutiny should also be stated. Admin recusal is definitely an issue in this case. EdChem (talk) 20:11, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I've held off on this as long as possible. Both versions of this proposed principle include the assertion that dispute resolution may not be used to intimidate. Compare that wording to an occasion that happened less than one month ago in connection to the JzG RFC. I had posted to Jehochman's talk page saying "I have no wish to enter formal dispute resolution with you, but no reluctance to either. So if you wish to shake cyberhands, please post a few words to that effect. Best wishes," (full text here) which Jehochman blanked with an unpleasant edit summary and followed up at my user talk to say "I despise the way you keep threatening me with process," (full text here). Now if--according to Jehochman's own words--that constitutes a misuse of dispute resolution on my part, then I am at a loss to conceive how I may ever use it properly. Are editors to be left without recourse when an administrator assaults their integrity? Durova 21:16, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

No, editors may request dispute resolution at any time, if they do so in good faith. What they may not do is use threats of dispute resolution (vexatious litigation) in an attempt to dominate another editor, or overwhelm them to redundant complaints hither and thither. Jehochman 23:20, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

How do you reconcile that with your own reaction to my statement less than three weeks ago that you did not come to the JzG RfC with clean hands on matters of recusal, and that if I were the initiator of this case it would have been named Administrative recusal and included you as a named party? The terms upon which you initiated this case and have presented workshop proposals could be read as an attempt to frame the scope of discussion in terms of a microdispute between JzG and Abd, which might be laudable on the part of a truly disinterested Wikipedian, but the fact is that it also happens to be to your direct advantage to define the scope on these terms--in ways which you have not disclosed within the case despite your very active presence here as case initiator and workshop proposal writer. Durova 00:18, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) Sheesh! Look away for a few minutes and the kids are squabbling again. Durova et al, Jehochman's proposal is basically right and does no harm, especially if the best and most complete wording is accepted. I know that there is lots you can say about this, and it's mostly better left not said. Sure, I don't like Jehochman's "framing," not really expressed with this proposal, and, sure, it's part of the problem, but, one issue at a time. Part of building consensus is accepting whatever is, at worst, harmless from the other parties. With other proposed findings or principles, the "personal squabble" framing may come up, though the nails are falling out day by day. We can deal with it then and, Durova, I'm sure you'll have plenty to say on it if it does, and I may be right there with you. Meanwhile, I've got the rest of my evidence to prepare, articles to work on, and kids to get to school in the morning.... --Abd (talk) 01:27, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

If anyone needs proof that Abd and I are not two peas in a pod, there you have it. Now as everyone probably knows, Jehochman and I haven't always been best of chums either. Regardless, each issue I raise is presented on its merits--not as a pretext for supporting or opposing particular people. People can find themselves in awkward positions when workshop proposals go up too early; that probably applies on all sides. Durova 02:06, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Durova, I have no doubt that you raise some valid points. Yes, I thought it was early myself; how about having a week's evidence? Is there some emergency here? I don't think so, JzG isn't editing at all (may have nothing to do with this), though some may think my editing a problem. But if that's an emergency, every admin has a block button and, besides, I respond to warnings from administrators. Even when I don't agree with them; I then, if I think it important, follow WP:DR with the warning admin or at least obtain community support before proceeding. But obviously Jehochman had a different view, and it takes all kinds to build a project. --Abd (talk) 02:24, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Spam blacklist

3) The spam blacklist is used to prevent the addition of links to Misplaced Pages which have been spammed abused widely. The spam blacklist is not for filtering out unreliable sources.

3.1) The spam blacklist is used to prevent the addition of links to Misplaced Pages which have been, or are likely to be, abused widely, or which contain malware or copyright violations.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. May need technical tweaks. Jehochman 23:28, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Support. Yes, it might need some expansion, because there may be some applications of the blacklist beyond wide linkspam. However, this statement does leave room for other possible uses, it simply rules out one that is, by consensus when considered, not legitimate. Going further than that here may not be appropriate. --Abd (talk) 02:41, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Ummm. As "spammed," the word might offend some editor, yes, but "abused" opens the door to discussion at the blacklist of what constitutes abuse. "Linkspam" is a term of art that refers to massive addition of links without finding consensus even if the links are legitimate, and routinely, I've seen sites blacklisted where every link was legitimate in hindsight, but being added in volumes such that there is also legitimate concern that the links aren't receiving due consideration. Then, because blacklisting creates a severe problem for naive editors who can't save an edit to any part of an article or section they are editing, because of some link that they won't necessarily recognize, the links must be removed. So antispam volunteers end up, sometimes massively, reverting good edits with no discussion. Convenient for the antispammers, but sometimes harmful to content. Instead of "spammed" or "abused," I'd suggest "to prevent the massive and rapid addition of links to Misplaced Pages without a showing of acceptability." Otherwise we will see what we've seen in Beetstra's evidence, that links added in a good faith belief that they were appropriate, over a long period of time, come to be viewed as evidence of abuse. "Abuse" is a term which could apply to any allegedly inappropriate link. "Copyright violations," unless massive or involving a site where we should know that copyvio is likely, is an argument that was used against lenr-canr.org and newenergytimes.com. Possible violations below that level create no legal risk for Misplaced Pages. Editors should not have to verify and prove that a page on a durable and readily visible web site is not a copyright violation, it turns quick edits into a red tape nightmare. Low-level copyright problems need no blacklist, the blacklist is quite clearly designed in MediaWiki for prevention of massive linkspam that can't be dealt with any other way. Possible exceptions to "massive addition without review" or whatever should be documented and accepted by consensus, otherwise there will continually be disruption about this. Absolutely, a A.B. notes below, malware is an excellent exception, one that can be treated as an emergency. What is essential is that broad generalizations about the supposed unusability of a web site ("Not reliable source") not become a reason for blacklisting. --Abd (talk) 17:09, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Generally support, though one might consider "The 'spam blacklist' is used to prevent the addition of links to Misplaced Pages which have been abused widely" (spam and spamming being negative perojatives which tend to offend people). --Dirk Beetstra 09:08, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment: We sometimes blacklist sites on en.wikipedia that are extremely abusive but have not been widely spammed. Furthermore, URL redirects or malware sites are blacklisted on site on Meta. Copyvio sites are also often blacklisted even if not widely spammed. Finally, we'll often blacklist a spammer's other domains even if not yet spammed when the spammer has ignored multiple warnings regarding his spam domains. --A. B. 19:38, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Additional comment: the blacklist is occasionally used to filter out unreliable sources; the most prominent instance was Jimbo Wales' decision to blacklist blog.myspace.com. The instances are few and far between but appropriate in my opinion. --A. B. 20:42, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the info! Is version 3.1 better? Jehochman 22:36, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Whether 3.0 or 3.1, does this principle amount to ArbCom setting policy as to use of the blacklist? (Given that there is no "among other uses" clause) Is this within ArbCom's remit? Franamax (talk) 00:57, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Franamax here on reading 3.1 (the problem is less with 3.0).

Reply to Abd. A lot of spammers here come in good faith, and even SEO's do. They come here to 'enrich' our Misplaced Pages with their links, and with their information, and to enable the[REDACTED] community to find their products. They don't know that they violate our policies and guidelines, and hence abuse 'our servers'. Still, they do. Generally, we warn, and if there is no positive response (or it can not be expected due to changing accounts), then the abuse if of a form where sanctions aremay be necessary. You say here "Otherwise we will see what we've seen in Beetstra's evidence, that links added in a good faith belief that they were appropriate, over a long period of time, come to be viewed as evidence of abuse.". Some of the links I present there are recent links, at times where IPs are warned using captchas (I think it is "MediaWiki:Fancycaptcha-addurl", in this form since December 2007 "Your edit includes new external links. These may be much welcomed links to references. Please note that the nofollow HTML attribute is applied to external links in Misplaced Pages, instructing search engines to ignore these links when computing page ranks. For information on our standards for adding links, please see our External links Guideline."; question, do not autoconfirmed editors also get this?). And in times where discussions with Pcarbonn about POV etc. were already ongoing. I agree, blacklisting on single abuse is too harsh (exceptions are there, but generally), but if the abuse is over a longer period of time, multiple editors and multiple[REDACTED] pages, and at least some of the editors were at least warned (and note, that IPs are warned even if they don't have a warning on their talkpage!), or issues were discussed, then the distinction is different (I however would agree with a phrase "is the abuse here of a scale wide enough to allow for blacklisting?", but suggesting that there is abolutely no proof of abuse here .. hmmm ..). --Dirk Beetstra 10:26, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Expand: Abd, you seem to be afraid, that "abuse" will encapsulate the blacklisting of unreliable sources without them having been abused or spammed. Abuse here means that a site was abused, that there have been editors who have used the site in any form of abuse. What constitutes abuse, and what is 'wide scale' is down to interpretation and discussion, but we are talking about cases where editors (including admins) have reason to blacklist because they see additions in the past which they see/interpret as a form of abuse. There is, in my opinion, for regular sites absolutely NO reason to blacklist without it having been abused (possible: redirectsites and malware sites, and sites which are part of a larger group of sites (where a number of these were already significantly abused, e.g. all websites registered to a spammer which reside all on one server) being exceptions, these exceptions should probably be mentioned separately in guidelines or policies). --Dirk Beetstra 10:48, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Jehochman, 3.1 looks better. I'd also add something along the lines of "The spam blacklist is also occasionally used to block unreliable sites that have not been spammed but only after very widespread community discussion and consensus." --A. B. 12:01, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Oppose 3.0, support 3.1. Stifle (talk) 14:44, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Proposed findings of fact

Abd and dispute resolution

1) User:Abd has not used dispute resolution in bad faith.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I've said this before. While Abd might have pushed further than he should have, he was acting in what he thought were the best interests of the project. Jehochman 23:08, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

How could I possibly disagree with this? --Abd (talk) 02:32, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

This gets into assigning motivation, which is dangerous ground for ArbCom. It also seems a bit misplaced - after all, the worst harm that has befallen this encyclopedia has been done by people unshakably convinced that they were acting in the best interests of the project. MastCell  03:49, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

We can't know motivation; true. We can draw reasonable conclusions based on observed behavior. Abd has been accused of causing severe disruption. At some point we have to decided this issue. If there has been a failure of community-based dispute resolution, we have to find out why. I am proposing that Abd has not acted so improperly that they could be deemed as acting in bad faith. Fact is, Durova supports Abd's position, so he's not alone in this. There's probably at least some merit to his complaint. Jehochman 15:55, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with this, it has maybe gone on a bit too far, but I do believe he is acting in what he thinks is for the best interests of the project. --Dirk Beetstra 09:56, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

JzG and Cold Fusion

2) JzG has stated that he will not administrate in the area of cold fusion going forward.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Just to make clear what was already agreed at the suggestion of User:Newyorkbrad. Jehochman 23:10, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

The only problem with this is that the issue wasn't Cold fusion, it was admin recusal. Do we need a separate promise for every article and situation that JzG might encounter where he should recuse? Does he promise not to block Nuxx bar? Quite simply, I didn't look for general abuse of tools, just with respect to one article. However, no big problem, it's just a fact, I think, if supported by a diff. It's just not terribly relevant. Let's see what the evidence page shows after a week, and especially after JzG submits evidence, if he does. --Abd (talk) 02:38, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I think it is clear that the specific instance serves as a warning for the general situation. JzG is clueful and well-meaning. I think he'll be more careful about recusal going forward. Hopefully he'll post something to that effect. Jehochman 03:00, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to think that; unfortunately, the evidence shows otherwise. JzG was under an RfC for failure to recuse, and, in the middle of it, he removed an IP edit from the RfC and blocked, while, on the face, involved. Even if JzG had some legitimate reason for the block, the appearance of involvement creates an obligation to recuse. This block, a few days ago, shows a failure to take the matter seriously and to alter behavior, even under scrutiny. Cold fusion was merely an example. While it seems possible it was a coincidence that investigating Cold fusion history turned up so much evidence, it's unlikely. From prior cases, such as those of Tango and Physchim62, with showing of "pattern" less than seen here, the community and the committee seem likely to need an acknowledgment from the administrator that a subject action was a violation, and then, a promise not to repeat such violations -- with any involvement -- in the future. Physchim62 and Tango, no doubt, blocked in good faith, but showed, by the action, a disregard of recusal requirements, and continued, once challenged, to defend the actions as proper, as has JzG. It was very clear with Physchim62 (and, I think, Tango) that the community and committee would have forgiven everything if they had acknowledged the error. So far, after much request, JzG came up with, in his statement in this RfAr, "maybe I am not the best person to take action on that article any more, having become imbroiled in the dispute." This acknowledges no violation, in fact. So what happens the next time JzG encounters a situation, is involved, and thinks he should block or blacklist or whatever? Will he recognize the involvement and recuse? There is no question of punishment, but it is not punishment to prevent further damage when there is reason to suspect that damage will recur. --Abd (talk) 17:42, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

No comment on most of your post, Abd, but I just want to point out that this FoF only refers to JzG's further administrative involvement in the topic of cold fusion; it makes no assertion that he has stated he will similarly recuse himself elsewhere, which seems to be what you're concerned about. The statement you quote ("maybe I am not the best person to take action on that article any more, having become imbroiled in the dispute.") does state that he will stop using the tools with respect to cold fusion. Hersfold 18:45, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

The problem, from my perspective, is that Abd keeps saying that Guy has had ongoing problems, but the evidence doesn't support that. Am I missing something? Is this block really the only instance of recent "admin abuse" to be found? Because I think you'll find it difficult to get people up in arms about blocking an obvious troll who followed Guy here from an off-wiki dispute. There's not much substance here. Time might be better spent organizing and presenting actual evidence of an active problem (diffs, log entries, etc) rather than repeating claims which seem to lack a sound foundation. MastCell  21:38, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Clerks, please reserve comment sections for parties to comments by parties. This comment may be moved with those above by non-parties as a threaded response. I will present evidence of JzG incivility before the week is up. I had hoped to avoid that issue, in spite of substantial urging off-wiki to bring it up. Apparently it's necessary now. No, the recent block I do not see as uncivil, particularly, but as evidence of recent action while involved and flagrant disregard of what was already extensive notice to JzG by the community that it was a problem, as described in the RfC and, of course, including the RfC itself. I'm not seeking to "get people up in arms," at all. I'm asking for a sober judgment by the committee. --Abd (talk) 16:24, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Agree with this. Abd, this is about the cold fusion case, we don't decide here about possible 'refusal' to recuse in future cases, similarly to not blacklisting sites that can be misused in the future. --Dirk Beetstra 10:02, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

One consequence of this case is that any finding here will serve as notice to JzG. Hopefully that would prevent any hypothetical refusal to recuse. Should that contingency occur, as Abd fears, I expect the Committee would take swift and stern action. Jehochman 11:15, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Why should JzG fear Committee would take swift and stern action when someone who pledged to not revert JzG's adminstrative actions in front of ArbCom less than 1 year ago is reverting JzG's adminstrative actions? Pledges to do things in front of ArbCom are apparently unimportant and irrelevent - like pledges to be "open to recall." Hipocrite (talk) 12:20, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

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:Ronnotel

Proposed principles

Tools exist primarily to sanction behavior, not content

1) The use of administrative tools should be limited to the minimum required to prevent disruptive behavior. Using them to restrict access to material in a content dispute should be avoided.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

At their most fundamental level, administrative tools are meant to be coercive - i.e. to discourage disruptive behavior and encourage productive. Their effectiveness is lost when they are employed against something incapable of learning, such as the content itself. Ronnotel (talk) 21:15, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with the general statement, "Tools exist to sanction behavior, not content" however I would support "Using the blacklist to restrict access to material in a content dispute among established editors should be avoided." As to whether the blacklist is a behavioral or content tool can be a matter of semantics; It's commonly said in dealing with spammers that "blocking is a behavioral tool to protect Misplaced Pages while domain blacklisting is a content tool." We sometimes use page protection, another tool, in content disputes for brief periods of time. --A. B. 20:51, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I take your point, AB. However, I do think it's important to stress that the primary purpose of the tools is to address behavior. I believe a much higher level of care should be shown when they are used to address content concerns. I suspect this is something we can readily agree upon. Is the description of my proposed principal in line with your thoughts? If so, perhaps we can come up with a better tag line? How about Tools exist primarily to sanction behavior, not content'? Ronnotel (talk) 01:38, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I've discussed this at great length with Beetstra. The general statement is accurate. "Should be avoided" doesn't mean that there are no circumstances where the blacklist process may -- nay, must -- consider content. Maybe a general statement about use of admin tools is important, but perhaps also a more specific one about the blacklist itself. Bottom line: blacklisting was designed to deal only with massive linkspam, that couldn't be handled other ways, so if that doesn't exist, there should be no blacklisting, and exceptions would require a strong showing of damage (such as malware, good example). Then, if the danger is past, delisting should probably be routine. I will, later, give examples. However, if there is real and present danger of massive linkspam, then whitelisting specific pages becomes a cumbersome but necessary way of dealing with legitimate use, and this, then, should require some showing of either necessity, or, possibly, simple, nearly automatic process whereby registered editors can easily request whitelisting, not be grilled about it, and it's granted by a neutral admin, and blacklist volunteer admins would not ever decline a whitelisting request, because of the circularity that gets set up. This means less burden on the blacklist volunteers, who do a very important and difficult job. --Abd (talk) 14:53, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, Abd and I have discussed this at great length, and agree on the basis of the terms (sometimes disagreeing on some semantics or on terms, but well). Admin tools should indeed not be used to control content, we fully agree on that. But I disagree that page protection, blocking people and blacklisting links is 'controlling content'! The only 'content' that is blocked by blacklisting a link is the external link in the external links section. I still insist that blacklisting a link does not disable adding content to the body, and referencing it to the material on the blacklisted site (pointy example, but again, if I say, that I said in revid 283836766 on this wiki "I am not disputing, anywhere, that these sites contains good information and with the copies that are there there are no copyright issues.", then you are able to confirm that; it is more work, but it does not make it untrue, unverifyable etc.!) You only can't link to it anymore (in references, the link is a convenience link, not a absolute must, though it is certainly helpful (and I am talking about content space, not about talkpage discussions, yes, it also hampers discussion on talkpages!!). Also, it is not the end, specific links can still be whitelisted where needed. Blacklisting hence slows down the editing, and makes people think about what they add, and 'forces' discussion, but I do not believe that it really controls content. --Dirk Beetstra 09:20, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Proposals by User:Short Brigade Harvester Boris

Proposed principles

The purpose of talk pages

1) The purpose of talk pages is to communicate. Users should make sufficient effort so that others can understand them.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Yah. Talk pages are not for obfuscation. Jehochman 12:54, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed; paraphrased from the policy page WP:TALK. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:52, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Long, rambling messages

2) Talk page comments should be concise. Posts longer than 100 words should be shortened. Long, rambling messages are difficult to understand, and are frequently either ignored or misunderstood.

Comment by Arbitrators:

100 words limit per talkpage post? Geez, if someone enforces that against me, the only question will be should I retire, or just type every fifth word? (How long has that been in the guideline, anyway? Quite seriously, I've never noticed or heard of it before.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:59, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Don't waste words. Jehochman 12:54, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. Taken near-verbatim from the policy page WP:TALK. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:45, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Struck the "100 words" bit per NYB. The important point is "Long, rambling messages are difficult to understand, and are frequently either ignored or misunderstood"; the 100-words specification is not central to the principle. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:04, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Proposals by noone

Proposed principles

Promises are binding

1) Pledges made by users in RFC's, RFAr's and Mediations are binding. Failure to observe those pledges can lead to sanction.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Admirable sentiment, but circumstances change, and thus, promises are not binding. The only situation where a sanction may be needed is if a promise is given in bad faith to induce a reliance that somehow harms Misplaced Pages. Jehochman 12:52, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

I don't think so. Pledges made on Misplaced Pages are like pledges in real life. If someone shakes your hand and promises they'll do something, and then they renege on their promise, what happens? You get mad, they lose credibility and trust. Same things happen here. I would argue that a loss of credibility and trust is actually a more serious repercussion, on Misplaced Pages, than an administrative sanction. MastCell  16:53, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

In light of the current pandemic we should avoid shaking hands with Viridae, and Viridae should beware of MastCell. Jehochman 12:03, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm struggling to synch this Principle with our policies, or any synthesis thereof. Fritzpoll (talk) 11:27, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Policies are descriptive of current practice. Promises are often reneged on, and these are not sanctioned - thus it is not policy. Your quotation is all very well and good, but it doesn't relate to the text of this principle - you are synthesising the principle from ADMIN and your own standards of when trust is lost. I'm not saying I don't agree with the sentiment, but I don't thing one necessarily follows from another sufficient for a principle to be established. Perhaps rewording this is in order? Fritzpoll (talk) 13:59, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Proposed findings of fact

Template

1) Viridae had been involved in a series of disputes with JzG and has reverted a disproportionate number of JzG's administrator actions. In view of their disagreements on numerous issues, Viridae agreed to refrain from reverting any of JzG's administrator actions after 24 September 2008.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

As I remember, this seems correct. Jehochman 12:52, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think i have interacted with JzG at all since that case was opened. (unless you count the blacklist bit) Viridae 10:20, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

JzG blacklisted newenergytimes

2) JzG added newenergytimes to the blackslist.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

The record is the record. Jehochman 12:55, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Sure. He added it, and that action is one subject to review here. However, it did not remain on the blacklist because of JzG, it was on the blacklist because Beetstra confirmed it, and became the "acting administrator." If blacklist guidelines were being followed, the listing would have been removed because it was not logged, unless someone confirmed it, as Beetstra did. Beetstra's action in confirming was not outside normal practice on the blacklist. --Abd (talk) 16:29, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

I agree with the original statement by Hippocrite. Abd, please separate the other statement in a separate finding of fact, it has nothing to do with this. --Dirk Beetstra 17:20, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Viridae deblacklisted newenergytimes

2) Viridae removed newenergytimes from the blackslist.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Oops! Jehochman 12:56, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Viridae did not "reverse an admin action," as implied, but closed a discussion on the blacklist page that had remained open for two weeks, in response to a request for a neutral close at AN. Hipocrite seems to be bent on creating as much disruption as possible, so I'll include some evidence on that. --Abd (talk) 16:36, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Agree with original statement. Abd, no-one said here that Viridae's action was "reverse an admin action,", and I don't see that implication, that might be a separate finding of fact to discuss. --Dirk Beetstra 17:22, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Somewhat confused here - as I understand the timeline of events, JzG blacklists, Dirk "takes on the responsibility" for the blacklisting by confirming it (Sorry Dirk - I can't think of a better wording for this!) and a discussion later ensues to de-blacklist. So when Viridae closes the discussion, she is actually removing something that Dirk is "responsible" for, and per a community discussion. I am struggling to link Viridae directly to overturning JzG as Hipocrite's intention appears for me to do. It certainly wasn't an admin action of JzG's being overturned since responsibility for the decision (such as it is) was no longer his. Unless I'm missing something (which I freely admit I may be), this seems somewhat tenuous... Fritzpoll (talk) 11:24, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

But the question in this 'finding of fact', as it is currently worded, does not say anything about JzG and his involvement, or about the question if the responsibility is transferred (or shared, or maybe it is only a confirmation of/agreement with the action of JzG). It at most suggests that that is what Hipocrite means. We really need another 'finding of fact' here (or more than one) regarding those things, or a serious rewrite of this finding of fact. --Dirk Beetstra 11:37, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, my confusion forced me to attempt a rationalisation. At best, this sequence of Viridae-related proposals seems incomplete, and is, at worst, an irrelevance to this case. I'm happy for someone to convince me otherwise, however. Fritzpoll (talk) 12:06, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

But that is an over-simplification of what has happened here. Viridae closed a discussion, and did not undo Guy's action directly - that is, not the older pattern you describe of reverting admin actions. The discussion close appears an accurate reflection of the discussion itself. I agree that in the interests of propriety and appearance, it would have been better if Viridae had not closed the discussion. On the other hand, I don't think that this is the appropriate forum for this matter - hence my comment about irrelevancy. Take it to WP:AE if there is a problem, but at present we just need to handle the existing parties to the case. Fritzpoll (talk) 12:40, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Fritz. I struggle to see how raising this issue here is helpful to resolving the case at hand. Ronnotel (talk) 12:53, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

All caps shouting seems a little inappropriate here. My point was simply that Viridae is not a party to this case, and that conflating these issues in an existing case at this stage is not a good idea. We're here to sort out Abd and JzG - Viridae's actions can be resolved in another forum. Repeatedly shouting the same thing is not going to get your point across any better - you think Viridae broke her agreement. I get it. I just think this is not the place to have this discussion. My suggestion is to go to AN and find someone else to reclose the debate if you find it so irksome. If you want sanction for Viridae, WP:AE and the clarifications section of WP:RFAR are thataway...Fritzpoll (talk) 14:05, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Viridae never meant his pledge

3) Viridae stated that his pledge to arbcom was "never binding."

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

It would be wise not to resume the JzG-Viridae feud. All parties should try to cooperate in that objective. I am not sure this finding helps. Jehochman 12:59, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

This is the kind of implication of bad faith that is too common with some editors. The direct evidence is , where Viriae responds to a provocative question by Hipocrite. Okay, was the decision binding? The vote on it refers to a voluntary agreement. Is a voluntary agreement binding? What might have been ruled had there been no agreement? The original proposed ruling was 2) Viridae is warned not to involve himself in JzG's business, and not to undo administrative actions without prior discussion and consensus. or 2.1) Viridae is instructed not to revert, in whole or in part, any administrative action taken by JzG. Newyorkbrad later restated it by reporting the agreement. We can speculate, and shouldn't. I've pointed out previously that if Hipocrite, or anyone else, considers Viridae to have violated the ruling, AE is open. Given that there was no "reversal" of JzG, but a close of a discussion that hardly mentioned JzG, and it's even possible that Viridae was not aware of the prior listing by JzG, and the community has clearly accepted the Viridae close in spite of wide attention to it, this whole line of approach is vicious wikilawyering over what would be, at worst, a mild offense, and is abuse of this RfAr to pursue one or more vendettas. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abd (talk • contribs) 16:59, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

How ridiculous Hipocrite, if I hadn't meant it there is plenty of times over the last year since the case when I could have, taken issue with something JzG did, but didn't or overturned an action of his, or involved myself in discussions in which he was heavily involved - I have avoided all of that. In this case, I simply answered the request to have a neutral admin close that discussion. I was that admin, and I closed it fas I did for the reasons given on the evidence talk page. JzG is fond of referring to the beating of deceased equines - this equine is a long time dead and buried and you are flagellating it as hard as you can go. Viridae 10:16, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

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.

Viridae instructed

1) Viridae is instructed never to revert any of JzG's adminstrative actions, regardless of his view of consensus, and reminded that his previous pledge was binding. Further failures to follow his pledges will result in sanction.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Viridae is not presently a party to the case. If any arbitrator wishes to take up this issue, he would need to be notified. For the record, note that in the prior case, JzG and Viridae were instructed to avoid "unnecessary interactions" with each other. Bickering over what precisely constitutes an "interaction" between these two administrators will hopefully not become necessary. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:40, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Reword this. A warning or admonishment not to do this again would be wise. Whether the pledge was binding or not, the message is "don't do it!" Jehochman 12:57, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Reject this utterly. There was no "failure to follow a pledge." The draft proposed finding, before the "voluntary agreement" was made, "instruction" to not reverse JzG decisions, except reversal after "prior discussion and consensus." So Hipocrite is actually proposing a reversal of the decision that Viridae averted by voluntary agreement. --Abd (talk) 17:04, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Viridae was made aware of this case and has commented on it - . Hipocrite (talk) 17:49, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't actually following it - the only reason I noticed this particular section was because it came up in my watchlist. Viridae 10:18, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Proposals by User:Z

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: