Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Vivaldi/Workshop

This is a page for working on Arbitration decisions. It provides for suggestions by Arbitrators and other users and for comment by arbitrators, the parties and others. After the analysis of /Evidence here and development of proposed principles, findings of fact, and remedies, Arbitrators will vote at /Proposed decision.. Anyone who edits should sign all suggestions and comments. Arbitrators will place proposed items they have confidence in on /Proposed decision.

Motions and requests by the parties

Terryeo's arbitration

1) At Terryeo's arbitration, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Terryeo, the committee decided, among others, that:

• "Wikipedia:No personal attacks prohibits personal attacks."
• "Wikipedia:Neutral point of view contemplates fair expression of all significant points of view regarding a subject. The practice of first setting forth the positive viewpoint has been considered and rejected."
• "Edit warring is harmful. Content disputes should be resolved by recourse to verifiable sources and discussion, not repeated reverts of an article."
• "Users who engaged in aggressive, sustained point of view editing may be banned from affected articles, in extreme cases, from Wikipedia." (WP:TE)

Terryeo, who has defended Vivaldi in the past[1][2][3], and worked on several of the Scientology articles pushing the same agenda also engaged in similiar behavior. Thus, I believe the committee should look at Terryeo's case as somewhat of a preceedent regarding issues of personal attacks, POV, and TE. Arbusto 19:16, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Guilt by association is precluded. Fred Bauder 14:54, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Purpose of ArbCom

1) WP:CIVIL, WP:POV, and ArbCom. This decision should demonstrate to Vivaldi that his behavior and personal attacks are not tolerated by the community. As demonstrated here[4], this user is unapologetic and fails to accept responsibility for his actions. Arbusto 05:28, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

He was being taunted Fred Bauder 14:57, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed temporary injunctions

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed final decision

Proposed principles

Template

1) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons

1) Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons requires that controversial material regarding living persons have a reliable source.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 15:45, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Remove unsourced or poorly sourced controversial material

2) Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Remove_unsourced_or_poorly_sourced_controversial_material provides that editors should remove any controversial material about living persons that is either unsourced, relies upon sources that do not meet standards specified in Wikipedia:Reliable sources, or is a conjectural interpretation of a source. This action is listed as an exception to the three-revert rule. These principles apply to biographical material about living persons found anywhere in Wikipedia, including user and talk pages. Administrators may enforce the removal of such material with page protection and blocks, even if they have been editing the article themselves. Editors who re-insert the material may be warned and blocked. See the blocking policy and Wikipedia:Libel.

Administrators encountering biographies that are unsourced and controversial in tone, where there is no NPOV version to revert to, should delete the article without discussion (see WP:CSD criterion A6).

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 15:52, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Reliable sources for biographical material

3) Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Reliable_sources requires that any assertion in a biography of a living person that might be defamatory if untrue must be sourced. Without reliable third-party sources, a biography will violate No original research and Verifiability, and could lead to libel claims.

Information available solely on partisan websites or in obscure newspapers should be handled with caution, and, if derogatory, should not be used at all. Information found in self-published books, newspapers, or websites/blogs should never be used, unless written by the subject (see below).

Not all widely read newspapers and magazines are equally reliable. There are some magazines and newspapers which print gossip much of which is false. While such information may be titillating that does not mean it has a place here. Before repeating such gossip ask yourself consider if the information is true and if it is relevant to an encyclopaedic article on that subject. When these magazines print information they suspect is untrue they often include weasel phrases. Look out for these. If the magazine doesn't think the story is true, then why should we?

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 15:55, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Neutral point of view

4) Wikipedia:Neutral point of view contemplates fair representation of all significant point of view regarding a topic.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 17:04, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Essays are not policy

5) Essays, such as Wikipedia:Criticism, are not policy but primarily opinion pieces, Category:Wikipedia essays. They may, however, as in the case of Wikipedia:Criticism where there has been substantial diverse input by the community, provide some guidance, see, for example Wikipedia:Criticism#Criticism_integrated_throughout_the_article.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 15:32, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Self Published source

6) Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published_sources_.28online_and_paper.29, a policy, requires that, with the exception of established researchers, self-published material is not acceptable as a reliable source.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 15:42, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Quotation of material from an unreliable source

7) Quotation of material from an unreliable source by a source generally considered reliable does not render information acceptable for inclusion in Wikipedia.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 18:45, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

General applicability of fundamental principles

8) The principles which underlie Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Verifiability, and Wikipedia:Reliable sources continue to rule editing of articles following the death of a subject. A sober balanced treatment remains the rule as does the requirement that controversial information have a reliable source. Likewise, the same principles apply to on-going institutions the deceased was affiliated with.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 19:29, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Guilt by association

9) Guilt by association is never a sufficient reason to include negative information about third parties in a biography. At a minimum, there should be reliable sources showing a direct relationship between the conduct of the third parties and the conduct of the subject (a nexus), or that the subject knew or should have known and could have prevented the conduct of the third parties.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Thatcher131 22:20, 15 October 2006 (UTC) At least 6 former students of Hyles college have been accused of sexual offenses. However, there are no reliable sources (other than dissaffected former parishoners) to indicate that Hyles should have been able to predict or stop this behavior or that the environment at the college was a contributing factor. On the other hand, a deacon at Hyles' church while he was pastor was accused (and eventually convicted) of sexual offenses relating to a child. While he was out on bond awaiting trial, the church employed him as a Sunday School bus driver. This meets the nexus requirement whereas the other allegations do not. Thatcher131 22:20, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Template

1) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {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:

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Vivaldi

1) Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Vivaldi (Many of the diffs cited in the RfC seem bad, not going to the proper edit). The initial RfC created by Arbustoo was closed for lack of support but later reopened by FeloniousMonk. Vivaldi's response to the initial RfC.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Note Fred Bauder 15:01, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Affected articles

2) Preying from the Pulpit, First Baptist Church of Hammond, Jack Hyles, Hyles-Anderson College, and related articles. The controversy relates to alleged sexual misconduct.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 15:35, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Jack Hyles is dead

3) Jack Hyles died in 2001.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 16:39, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Vivaldi's editing

4) After a period of intensely editing Sollog and articles relating to Scientology, on April 30, 2006 Vivaldi began editing Jack Hyles and related articles [5]. The original attraction seems to have been this debate, now archived at Talk:Jack_Hyles/Archive_2#Sourcing, and subsequent sections.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 18:39, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Strict interpretation of Wikipedia:Reliable source

5) In his editing Vivaldi developed a theme of strict interpretation of Wikipedia:Reliable sources. This source being unacceptable, "adherents.org is the personal website of one man, it does not meet the guidelines of WP:RS." Others: [6]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 15:23, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Edit warring by Arbustoo

6) With respect to disputed issues involving Jack Hyles, Vivaldi added responses by Hyles to the article [7]. The responses were positioned immediately after the individual issues responded to. This editing is criticized by Arbustoo as a violation of Wikipedia:Criticism, an essay, "[essays] are not policy and are primarily opinion pieces." The violation, cited by Arbustoo as "policy" is of the following language in the essay, "criticism that is integrated into the article should not disrupt the article or section's flow." According to Arbustoo, "Adding full block quotes of criticism that disrupts the flow and copy anf pasting a 9 sentence rebuttal to a one sentence description changes the POV of the article." Based on this contention, Arbustoo reverted the article a number of times [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17]. Arbustoo took the position that Hyles responses should be linked to by an external link [18] and that policy required that criticism be in a discrete section [19], talk page discussion at Talk:Preying_from_the_Pulpit#Wikipedia:Criticism and Talk:Preying_from_the_Pulpit#Jack_Hyles_words_can_be_added_to_this_article_Arbustoo. On June 9 FeloniousMonk began reverting with the comment "rv to original until we settle this issue of apparent campaign to remove or weaken criticisms" [20], again with the comment "rv. Not until you settle the issues at your RFC and make the case for each of these changes on talk first" [21]. KillerChihuahua then began reverting [22]. C56C then reverted [23] and again with the comment, "rv. please come to a consensus on the talk; it appears most on the talk are opposed to this; agree with FeloniousMonk about the RfC first" [24]. Arbustoo again reverted with the comment "rv. get consensus on the talk; you are the only one who wants this change" [25]. During this bout of edit warring the focus changed from responses by Hyles to the question of insertion of a critical material regarding the television program:

On [[May 19]], [[1993]], the ''Northwest Indiana Times'' ran a story entitled ''Baptism by innuendo'', which criticized the sensationalized stories filled with innuendo that ran on WJBK-TV. The ''Times'' wrote, "If one were to take the insinuations of Detroit television station WJBK-TV seriously, one could get the impression that the First Baptist Church of Hammond is a sex-crime factory and that its pastors school in Hammond and the affiliated Hyles Anderson College in Schererville are institutions where people minor in molestation.".<ref name="innuendo">[http://nwitimes.com/articles/1993/05/19/export63023.txt Baptism by innuendo] ''[[Northwest Indiana Times]]'' [[May 19]], [[1993]]</ref> The Times also suggested that the May ratings period, which is traditionally known for such similar sensationalized stories, was not a good enough excuse to make up for the poor journalism the stories displayed, concluding that the stories were "a monstrous overreach". The Times went on to say: "There is no large institution of any kind where some wrongdoers cannot be found. First Baptist and its affiliated institutions are no exception. To tar an entire congregation or student body and alumni with indiscriminate innuendo is highly irresponsible."<ref name="innuendo" /> Soon afterwords, Hyles gave a speech in which he disputed the latest reports point by point.<ref name="Linked">Lehmann, Daniel J. "Pastor Linked to Sex Abuse Lashes Out," ''[[Chicago Sun-Times]]'', [[June 2]], [[1993]]. pg. 5</ref> During that speech, Hyles said that those that the report indicated had attended Hyles-Anderson College really had not even attended the school.<ref name="Linked" /> Several hundred people signed a statement supporting Hyles' in an advertisement placed in the Tuesday [[June 1]], [[1993]] ''Chicago Sun-Times''.<ref name="Linked" />

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 19:18, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Rudeness and misinterpretation of policy by Arbustoo

7) Arbustoo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been rude and has insisted on an idiosyncratic interpretation of policy supported by no more than an essay [26]. That edit led to an exchange of mutual recrimination at Talk:Preying_from_the_Pulpit#Wikipedia:Criticism.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 15:19, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Self published books

8) There are two self published books by critics of Jack Hyles which have been the subject of dispute:

• Voyle A. Glover. Fundamental Seduction: The Jack Hyles Case, Brevia Publishing Company (1990), trade paperback, ISBN 09628-5318-6
• Victor Nischik, The wizard of god : my life with Jack Hyles, Sychar Publishing Company (1990), OCLC 24730334

see Talk:Jack_Hyles/Archive_2#Voyle_Glover.27s_self-published_book and Talk:Jack_Hyles/Archive_2#Victor_Nischik.27s_book_on_Hyles and the discussion at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Vivaldi/Evidence#Twelfth_assertion and Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Vivaldi/Evidence#Re:Twelfth_assertion.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 15:33, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Contradictions

9) With respect to Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Reliable sources, now under discussion at Wikipedia:Attribution, there are a number of contradictions can result in information for which there is no reliable source being included. For example, a self-published book is considered unreliable, but the same information included in a television special might not be; verbal assertions of a person involved in a controversy are considered unreliable, but a newspaper report of those assertions might be considered reliable. The following example, taken from First Baptist Church of Hammond on October 13, 2006 nicely illustrates the problem:

===Allegation of neligence=== On December 8, 1997 ''[[Christianity Today]]'' reported that Hyles and his church, the First Baptist Church of Hammond, were being sued for "for negligence in connection with alleged sexual assaults on a mentally disabled church member over a six-year period"<ref name="RapeCT">{{cite web | year = 2006 | url = http://www.ctlibrary.com/ct/1997/december8/7te63a.html | title = Baptist Megachurch Faces Sex Suit | work = [[Christianity Today]] | accessdate = 2006-05-01}}</ref> The lawyer for the woman, Vernon Petri, "says Hyles is a defendant because he failed to protect the woman", such that "controls have to be set to be sure things are conducted appropriately."<ref name="RapeCT" /> However, ''Christianity Today'' pointed out that no criminal charges were ever filed in the case. Also, Hyles denied the allegations that either he or his church were negligent in the care of the woman in an October 12 advertisement in the Hammond Times.<ref name="RapeCT" /> According to the lawyer, "a church program instructor led her to a room and served as a lookout while two to three males raped her."<ref name="RapeNWI"> Debra Gruszecki. [http://nwitimes.com/articles/1997/10/04/export247369.txt Suit claims rape at church] ''[[Northwest Indiana Times]]'' October 4, 1997 </ref>The women developed a "serious" infection and doctors "found, embedded in her, a plastic object."<ref name="RapeNWI" /> "The "civil suit filed in [[Lake Superior]] Court in Gary claims the Chicago woman was "induced by agents" of the church in 1991 to ride a bus to attend Sunday."<ref name="RapeNWI" />

Note that there is no report of any verdict or settlement, just allegations which because they were reported in a magazine are considered to pass the test. Hyle's response, a simple personal assertion, gets in because there is a report published in a magazine of an ad he placed in a newspaper". A sort of "fact laundering".

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 17:02, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Fact laundering

10) In the section Hyles-Anderson_College#Controversy_and_criticism nearly all negative information relies on quotation by a putative reliable source of an unreliable source. For example,

"The ''[[Richmond Times]]'' quoted ex-Hyles follower and later critic, [[Robert Sumner]], who said "Jack Hyles, runs his church in an authoritarian, almost 'cultist,' manner." <ref name="Cracks"> Ed Briggs. "Fundamentalists' House Displaying Widening Cracks" ''[[Richmond Times]]''. Richmond, Va.: [[Jul 22]], [[1989]]. pg. A-9</ref>"

is not a report of research by the Richmond Times of the way Jack Hyles runs his church, but a quote of of one of Hyle's hostile ex-followers, the personal opinion of one person. Another,

"Sumner's paper "''The Biblical Evangelist'', published in [[Ingleside, Texas]], devoted the lion's share of a 24-page issue this month to what it headlined as "''The Saddest Story We Ever Published''" detailing Nischik's charges and editor Robert Sumner's contention that Rev. Hyles has strayed from biblical teaching and into cultlike mind control.<ref>Michael Hirsley, "Pastor denies adultery, 2 other charges." ''[[Chicago Tribune]]''. Chicago, Ill.: [[May 25]], [[1989]]. pg. 1</ref>".

This source, from the Chicago Tribune, is not a report of an investigation by the Chicago Tribune of the congruence of Hyle's behavior with biblical teaching or of an independent investigation of "cultlike mind control", but a report of what what published in The Biblical Evangelist, a newspaper published by the same hostile ex-follower, which in turn quotes the allegedly cuckolded husband of Hyle's alleged mistress. Again,

"According to the ''Richmond Times'' Sumner's article had over 100 allegations.<ref name="Cracks" />

100 allegations, none the result of reporting by the Richmond Times. Again,

"Among the various allegations was that Hyles had "sex satellites" in Petersburg, Beaumont, Texas; and Anniston, Alabama".<ref name="Lucifer">"Pastor Denounces Sex Allegations as 'A Lie Spawned by Lucifer'" ''Richmond Times-Dispatch.'' Richmond, Va.: [[Jun 02]], [[1993]]. pg. B-4</ref>".

More allegations, none the result of investigation by the professional journalists of the Richmond Times-Dispatch, but among the "over 100 allegations". That in an article headlined, "Pastor Denounces Sex Allegations as 'A Lie Spawned by Lucifer"

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 18:41, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Laundering of original research

11) This portion of Hyles-Anderson_College#Controversy_and_criticism, a local television news report, combines guilt by association with original research: first, there is the insight by those who attended church with the former Hyles-Anderson student that "he has been exposed to unorthodox religious training", second, from the newspaper report, the observation by the judge, "Beith's strict upbringing may have been a factor in his sexually deviancy". One can make an intuitive leap that sexual repression may lead to deviancy, but this is not a report of either scientific or journalistic research, but a second hand report of what a few anonymous parishioners said and of remarks by a federal judge made during sentencing.

This matter also came up again in 2001 when [[WBBM-TV]] ''The Channel 2 News'' at Ten on May 24, 2001 reported the actions of former Hyles-Anderson student William "Andy" Beith age thirty one was arrested in [[Las Vegas, NV]] after a nationwide [[FBI]] search pursued kidnapping and rape charges involving Beith's eleven year old student. The report noted "Former fellow Beith church members say Beith has been exposed to unorthodox religious training." When Beith was convicted and sentenced to 30 years in prison "The judge said Beith's strict upbringing may have been a factor in his sexually deviancy."[http://nwitimes.com/articles/2003/05/29/news/top_news/e18085d3cec1dd8a86256d3500147c55.txt]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 17:55, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Laundering of self-published book

12) This material from Hyles-Anderson_College#Controversy_and_criticism illustrates use of a newspaper report to launder material which came either from interviews with the involved individuals or from a self-published book by one of them (Nischik). There is no report of an investigation by the Chicago Tribune of Hyles alleged affair with Nischik's wife, only "he said". Likewise with the "questionable financial dealings". There is a headline of Hyles saying, "Charges All Lies". There was no investigation of the truth of the charges by the Chicago Tribune, just another "he said".

On May 28, 1989 ''[[The Chicago Tribune]]'' reported "former associate Victor Nischik has accused Hyles (President of the college at the time) of having an affair with his former wife Jennie" and questionable financial dealings.<ref name="Charges">"Charges All Lies, Hammond Pastor Says," ''[[The Chicago Tribune]]'', May 28, 1989.</ref> Pastor Hyles replied by saying the charges were "false" and "he has given 'hundreds of thousands' of dollars to needy friends over many years but has kept no records of the transactions.<ref name="Charges" /> The article also explained former deacon of the First Baptist Church, Victor Nischik accused Jack Hyles of committing adultery with Nischik's wife and Hyles' long time assistant, Jennie Nischik.<ref name="Charges" />

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 18:19, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Poorly sourced controversial material

13) Preying from the Pulpit, First Baptist Church of Hammond, Jack Hyles, Hyles-Anderson College contain large blocks of controversial material which lacks a reliable source, typically material consisting of allegations, quotations and second-hand reports.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 19:36, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

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

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Article probation

1) Preying from the Pulpit, First Baptist Church of Hammond, Jack Hyles, Hyles-Anderson College, and any related article which contains poorly sourced controversial material are placed on article probation. The expectation is that Vivaldi, Arbustoo, and other editors of these articles will in the course of editing remove poorly sourced controversial material.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 19:46, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Vivaldi and Arbustoo

2) As much of the material in dispute between Vivaldi and Arbustoo was material which has been determined to be controversial material which does not have an adequate source they are warned to avoid edit warring and encouraged to edit the articles in dispute appropriately.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 19:52, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Analysis of evidence

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

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

General discussion

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others: