Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pudgenet/Workshop

Arbitrators, involved parties, and others may use this page for working on matters such as analysis of evidence and proposed remedies. See the Contents below for the topics permitted on this page. Please sign your entries. Arbitrators will place entries they have confidence in on /Proposed decision.

Resolve content dispute
1) The second attempt at Perl mediation has ended in failure. There had been hope of resolving the content dispute if Pudgenet didn't interfere. At this point, I request that ArbCom look at the content disputes as well as the Pudgenet issues. The disputed content includes these three links, these paragraphs, this benchmark chart, and this module information, all of which I'd like restored. Most are Perl cons that fit in the preexisting Con subsection of the Opinion section. My compromise offers included rewording to highlight possible inaccuracies and me finding an equal number of pro items for balance. The second attempt at mediation ended with the one other participant (Steve p) wanting to omit all of these items and add "cons" of his choosing. -Barry- 05:48, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

The module information that I link to above should be changed to mention that tools like PPM can install some C modules. Also that C compilers can only build some C modules, which I base on the Perlmonks post that I linked to in mediation. I proposed a paragraph here, under "Something like this would probably be better." I think an arbitrator-supervised request for comments on the wording, so we can have a finding of fact here rather than going through yet another mediation attempt, would be successful.

For the other content disputes mentioned above, I think there's already enough (too much) information on the evidence pages, which I believe don't even need to be reviewed, but I'd welcome arbitrator supervised discussion on that too. Despite the long discussions and somewhat technical subject, I really don't think any of this would be very complicated for arbitrators. The Wikipedia policy issues and judging whether a source is encyclopedic isn't technical. And I think the fact that it's content for the Opinion section of Perl makes things even easier. -Barry- 03:16, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

An extended discussion of the content is available and has been moved to ContentDispute jbolden1517Talk 22:39, 21 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * As there was no finding of fact when the Perl mediation was closed out, the undersigned involved parties disagree that the content disputes be resolved in this arbitration. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Steve_p (talk • contribs).
 * (sign here)
 * — Hex    (❝  ?!  ❞)   17:55, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
 * jbolden1517Talk 00:01, 24 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Other comments by parties:


 * Comment by others:


 * As there was no finding of fact when the Perl mediation was closed out, the outside parties disagree that the content disputes be resolved in this arbitration.
 * (sign here)
 * Steve p 13:15, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
 * -- RevRagnarok  Talk Contrib Reverts 10:03, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Other comments by others:

Template
1)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Put neutrality notice in Perl's opinion section
1) I'd like this neutrality notice put back in the opinion section one of these neutrality notices put on top of Perl because of the three con links and two paragraphs that have been reverted by pro-Perl POV pushing editors (a characterization asserted by mediator jbolden1517, which I strongly agree with). -Barry- 21:35, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

The entire Opinion section has now been removed from the article along with all of its content, and this injunction is now even more important. Since the notice wouldn't be section-specific, it would cover the this benchmark chart, and this module information as well as the above content from the old Opinion section. -Barry- 01:37, 24 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * I am by far the most liberal of the arbitrators regarding resolution of content disputes. Even I find this rather daunting. Especially as an injunction. I am willing to consider whether a critical viewpoint is being suppressed, but that will take a bit of examination. Fred Bauder 22:07, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:


 * As there was no finding of fact when the Perl mediation was closed out, the undersigned involved parties disagree that the content disputes be resolved in this arbitration.
 * Steve p 20:19, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
 * — Hex    (❝  ?!  ❞)   06:39, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * (sign here)


 * As consensus has been reached on removing the opinion section from Perl entirely, the undersigned involved parties state that this proposed injunction is an outrageous attempt by Barry to force the acceptance of his POV against other editors' wishes.
 * — Hex    (❝  ?!  ❞)   06:51, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * (sign here)


 * Comment by others:


 * As there was no finding of fact when the Perl mediation was closed out, the undersigned other persons disagree that the content disputes be resolved in this arbitration.
 * -- RevRagnarok  Talk Contrib Reverts 10:01, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * (sign here)


 * As consensus has been reached on removing the opinion section from Perl entirely, the undersigned other persons state that this proposed injunction is an outrageous attempt by Barry to force the acceptance of his POV against other editors' wishes.
 * -- RevRagnarok  Talk Contrib Reverts 10:01, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * (sign here)


 * Other comments by parties:


 * Again, this is entirely inappropriate. This RfAr is about me, and I have not edited that article since a week before mediation began, and the actual participants in the disputes with Barry were not notified about this arbitration, that they might weigh in. Pudge 04:20, 20 June 2006 (UTC)


 * This is absolutely ridiculous. The irrelevance of the material that Barry is insisting on (over and over and over again) has been totally demonstrated by numerous people. Barry is not only demonstrating a willing disregard of the stated purpose of this RfAr and contempt for its process by putting this nonsense on it, but is also displaying a broad streak of hypocrisy by alleging other editors of Perl have been engaged in POV-pushing (cf. his numerous anti-Perl comments which have been linked to elsewhere in this process ad nauseam). This request is totally illegitimate. — Hex    (❝  ?!  ❞)   12:27, 20 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Hex, your comment appears to have been made in bad faith, considering this post from me, which I know you read because you replied to it twice (as recently as yesterday), in which I cite scholarly material in which the Tiobe data is used to measure popularity. You chose to link to a smaller thread in which neither one of us posted. I'll repeat part of the longer thread:


 * In Hex's revision of the TIOBE data, his edit summary says "This TIOBE stuff is non-scientific and not worthy of a reference." Whether it's worthy of a reference is addressed on the mediation page too, by me:


 * Statistical inferences can be drawn from the Tiobe data too, and the Tiobe data is cited in several journals and books. For example, chapter 4 of Transforming IT education: Promoting a culture of excellence says:


 * "Postgraduate students are generally aiming to extend their current skill set and diversify their employment options, and most likely want to acquire programming skills they can put into practice immediately. This factor directed the language selection toward one of the languages currently popular in the "real world". According to the TIOBE Programming Community (TPC) Index (TIOBE Programming community index for March 2004, n.d.), the top three most popular languages currently in use, as at March 2004, are Java, C and C++. Java and C++ have both declined in their popularity over the last 12 months, whereas the use of C has slightly increased."


 * Yet you still argue against including it in the Perl article. You argued it  here too, when you mentioned your removal of "non-encyclopedic material." You're damn right I think you're POV pushing.
 * -Barry- 00:30, 21 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Also, your comment "The irrelevance of the material that Barry is insisting on (over and over and over again) has been totally demonstrated by numerous people" it toally bogus. Nothing in that thread argues irrelevance. Pudgenet came closest when he referred to "the reasons I've already enumerated in detail elsewhere." -Barry- 00:39, 21 June 2006 (UTC)


 * All your TIOBE stuff is bogus. It's unverifiable, unjustifiable, plain old junk. Every time you link to it, you make Wikipedia worse. Your repeated attempts to get it into the article are vandalism.


 * Your accusations of POV-pushing on my part are a slur and an insult. I have already stated in detail that I welcome valid criticism of Perl. You are a hypocrite, a troll and a liar in addition to a vandal. — Hex    (❝  ?!  ❞)   06:39, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Require Pudgenet to allow my replies on his talk page
2) This demonstrates the problems caused by Pudgenet deleting my posts to his talk page regarding comments made about me. He even talks about me on his user page, and I'm unable to respond. Posts about me by others are probably unavoidable. If Pudgenet isn't banned, my replies to posts about me should be required to remain for as long as the posts about me remain, whether the posts are on Pudgenet's user page or talk page. -Barry- 00:04, 21 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * If he is going to engage in disputes with you he needs to communicate appropriately with you, but an injunction is inappropriate. Fred Bauder 22:07, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * See my response to theCelestrian here. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by -Barry- (talk • contribs).
 * ...to which I have posted my reflections, thoughts and counter-points - theCelestrian 22:40, 30 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * I have have been following this case since the request for mediation, so I am aware of most of the edits, reverts being discussed. As a disclaimer, I am not a "perl guy" nor anti-perl, so I have little emotional attachment to article, so long as the information is accurate.


 * With this said, I think that this particular "request" is completely and utterly off-base. Perhaps I have completely missed the boat, but am I to understand that -Barry- is asking for some kind of solution to force Pudge to keep -Barry-'s comments on his talk page? That is Pudge's user/talk page, not -Barry-'s, and it seems to me that Pudge has the right to edit/erase/write what he deems appropriate on his own talk page (obviously within reason and obeying policy/law).   If Pudge wants to comment about his opinions of -Barry-'s actions on his own talk page and/or 'erase' content off of his page that he doesn't want, it seems to me that he has a perfectly legitimate and absolute right to do so, just as -Barry- has the right to edit/write/erase what he deems fit on 'his' user/talk page.


 * Besides, this is Wikipedia, nothing ever 'truly' is deleted. Just check the page differences.


 * This seems somewhat akin to telling someone that they MUST allow certain people into their house, even if the owner/renter doesn't want them there. It is my understanding that your user/talk page is just that: yours.


 * My suggestion is that if -Barry- or JBolden have a problem with Pudge's talk page, then perhaps they should post their rebuttals on their talk page (Which -Barry- has done - extensively). I am also curious if -Barry- would appreciate it if a similar demand was made on his user/talk page as well.  It would appear to me based on the evidence presented (and I qualify that while I have followed this dispute, I make no claims of fact) that -Barry- wants to have a double standard in place that required Pudge to submit to -Barry-'s edits and opinions and at the same time punish Pudge for maintain his own that -Barry- doesn't happen to agree with. --theCelestrian 18:55, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Prevent changes to parts of Perl article under dispute
3) While a part of the Perl article is under mediation or arbitration, or requested to be and not yet denied, disallow changes to it that would have an affect on the dispute. In the past, Scarpia has changed the article against the mediated solution, while mediation was in progress, without trying to sway anyone in mediation first. Steve p and others are now calling for the removal of the Opinion section, which would make it harder to include the additions to the article that are under dispute. Removal of the Opinion section interferes with the primary issues and is a bad faith request, especially outside of mediation and arbitration (the request was made on Talk:Perl). -Barry- 19:27, 23 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * I am by far the most liberal of the arbitrators regarding resolution of content disputes. Even I find this rather daunting. Especially as an injunction. I am willing to consider whether a critical viewpoint is being suppressed, but that will take a bit of examination. Fred Bauder 22:07, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * Absurd. Perl is not under the scope of this RfAr and Barry knows it. — Hex    (❝  ?!  ❞)   23:25, 23 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * This is unnecessary and would interfere with the ability to make improvements of the Perl article. Steve p 19:43, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Exactly what Hex says above - this is a feud between Barry and Pudge, not the place for content disputes. -- RevRagnarok  Talk Contrib Reverts 10:06, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

=Proposed final decision=

Civility and personal attacks
1) Editors are expected to reasonably courteous to other users and to avoid personal attacks Civility and No personal attacks. jbolden1517Talk 23:24, 19 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Rephrased Fred Bauder 16:21, 25 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * I agree. This means Jbolden should not lobby an admin to ban me for following a part of the mediation guidelines he disagrees with; nor should he deface my  user page; nor should he call me (repeatedly) a vandal; and so on.  Civility is very important, and it is unfortunate that I have in a few cases lacked it.  It is even more unfortunate that Jbolden is attempting to convince people that he's the victim here. Pudge 04:28, 20 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * It goes both ways. "immature idiots" sure sounds like a personal attack to me. And making a big deal about not respecting an individual's choice in how they write their name (brian d foy, same edit) can also be construed as an attack. -- RevRagnarok  Talk Contrib Reverts 20:05, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Assume good faith
2) Editors should assume good faith towards other editors. jbolden1517Talk 23:27, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * I only assumed bad faith on the part of Barry and Jbolden after they proved they lacked it. As WP:AGF states, "there's a difference between assuming good faith and ignoring bad actions," especially in Jbolden's part, where he repeatedly refused to explain his significant deviations from the stated mediation guidelines, choosing to delete comment after comment I made asking for clarifications and remedies.   And, more importantly, it is Jbolden who is most guilty of not assuming good faith, as he misrepresents almost all of the edits of mine that he listed on the Evidence page. Pudge 04:50, 20 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Barry demonstrated from the beginning that his actions were not in good faith. Jbolden demonstrated a remarkable inability at mediation. — Hex    (❝  ?!  ❞)   12:33, 20 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Participation in dispute resolution in good faith
3) Users are required to participate in the give and take of Wikipedia's dispute resolution procedures in good faith, especially in the earlier steps of negotiation, consulting sources, and mediation. jbolden1517Talk 23:41, 19 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * This is a false principle. Mediation states the opposite, that mediation is not required, that people may leave mediation at will, and that the results of mediation are non-binding. Further, it is the implication of Jbolden that my lack of acceptance of him is an absence of good faith, when in fact, rejection of a mediator is a normal part of the process. Pudge 04:06, 20 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I will add that this characterization of my actions is false. What I indicated at the time and stand by is that launching personal attacks against a mediator -- both implying and outright stating  that a mediator is too stupid, dishonest, ignorant and unqualified to be successful -- should if it occurs at all only occur as part of one of wikipedia's many ways of having a mediator replaced.  Such attacks on the pages under mediation constitute an attempt to derail mediation not a disagreement about the choice of mediator.  jbolden1517Talk  11:07, 20 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I never stated, nor implied, he was stupid. I did question his competence as a mediator, which, given that I was being asked to participate in mediation, is certainly reasonable.  I also did, and do, continue to question his honesty, such as in my example of where he claimed I was interfering while doing something his admin said I could do, and refusing to honor Mediation or his many deviations from it.  He continues to assert what I did was wrong, but he brought in Durin, and Durin said what I was doing was not wrong.  To hold me culpable for trusting Jbolden's admin and acting on that is extreme. Pudge 16:05, 20 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Tendentious editing
4) Users who disrupt Wikipedia by tendentious editing and edit warring may be banned from the affected articles. In extreme cases they may be banned from the site. jbolden1517Talk 23:33, 19 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Comment by parties:
 * There is precisely one example of any tendentious editing by me, and it is the one "joke edit" I did more than a month ago, for which I've already been flogged many times over. Pudge 03:57, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
 * There is precisely one example of any tendentious editing by me, and it is the one "joke edit" I did more than a month ago, for which I've already been flogged many times over. Pudge 03:57, 20 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Good of the project
5) Editors are encouraged to have an open mind about other people's thoughts, and be ready to accept it when consensus is against them. They are encouraged to try to understand criticisms of their behaviour rather than immediately denouncing them as wrong. jbolden1517Talk 23:30, 19 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Barry is the only one guilty of this, repeatedly going against consensus in the Perl article, threatening arbitration on several occasions if he didn't get his way. The only time I can think of when I, during the Perl mediation process, "immediately denounced" something as "wrong," was when Jbolden and Barry kept asserting that some study meant something it by definition cannot mean: specifically, they kept asserting that a study by TIOBE -- one for which we cannot closely examine the methodology -- can quantiatively measure "popularity" of languages, even though it was measuring things that do not themselves necessarily correlate closely with popularity.  Despite their assertions, you can't say book sales are equivalent to popularity, because it could be that one language has been around longer and is more stable and has more used books available.  If someone says, "2+2=5," I will "denounce" this as "wrong," because it clearly is.  Pudge 04:35, 20 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Alienation
6) Users who are alienated from Wikipedia and express general opposition to fundamental Wikipedia policies such as the practice of having Administrators or Resolving disputes may be banned from the site. jbolden1517Talk 23:37, 19 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Comment by parties:
 * Expressing opposition shouldn't be enough to get you banned unless you're really being a PITA. Actively ignoring guidelines or policies, maybe. -Barry- 03:49, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Expressing opposition shouldn't be enough to get you banned unless you're really being a PITA. Actively ignoring guidelines or policies, maybe. -Barry- 03:49, 20 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Mediation is voluntary
7) Mediation must remain voluntary at every stage, including whether to participate, whether to accept a given mediator, whether to accept the result, and so on.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Of course, but interference with mediation, Talk:Perl_Mediation/Archive, is problematic. Fred Bauder 21:58, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * Again, the administrator brought in by the mediator told me that objecting to the mediation process, as I was doing, does not constitute proscribed interference. If he was wrong, so be it, but who should I listen to, then?  How do I know?  It's not like I was beating people over the head trying to prevent them from participating; I was merely expressing a belief that the mediation process would come to naught, was not required, and that participation would lend credence to a process that did not (in this case) deserve it.  If that is proscribed interference, then I'd like clarification on how those concerns could, in the future, if necessary, be properly expressed. Pudge 11:55, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Experts
8) Experts are welcome and are encouraged to edit with respect to subjects they have professional expertise and experience in. However that participation does not trump participation by others or the obligation by the expert to cite reliable and verifiable sources and to courteously engage in negotiation and other aspects of Wikipedia's dispute resolution process.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Proposed Fred Bauder 18:31, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * Agreed, absolutely, and I've never stated nor implied anything differently. Pudge 01:50, 2 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Framing a content dispute as a behavior dispute
9) Framing a dispute which, at bottom, is about content as a behavior dispute does not, however many behavior problems might exist, change its essential nature. It will be treated as a content dispute.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Proposed Fred Bauder 18:51, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1) {text of proposed principle}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Pudgenet has engaged in incivility
1) Over a period of six months there have repeated violations of WP:CIVIL by Pudgenet, see Requests_for_arbitration/Pudgenet/Evidence. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jbolden1517 (talk • contribs).


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Added an example Fred Bauder 20:37, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * I do not trust his judgment on what is "uncivil." I do not believe disagreeing with someone by saying they are wrong constitutes incivility. Further, Jbolden1517 has been extraordinarily uncivil toward me, on many occasions, including calling for bans or blocks (which -Barry- also did to me), defacing my user page, calling me a vandal (which -Barry- also did), and falsely accusing me of many violations that did not occur. Pudge 18:21, 19 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I disagree strongly that the diff cited in the proposed finding of fact constitutes incivility. — Hex    (❝  ?!  ❞)   09:31, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * On this point see proposed finding #16. — Hex    (❝  ?!  ❞)   21:32, 30 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * The diff presented isn't good evidence IMHO. If somebody wants to do things with their talk page, it's their page (with the exception of course of removing any of the warnings posted). -- RevRagnarok  Talk Contrib Reverts 19:40, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Pudgenet has engaged in personal attacks
2) Pudgenet has made accusatory comments, negative personal comments and profanity directed against another editor in violation of WP:NPA, , , , , and . —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jbolden1517 (talk • contribs).


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Added an example Fred Bauder 16:18, 25 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * In regard to Barry, this is not ongoing, and therefore not in need of resolution. There is only one other editor in which this has been a recent problem, and that is Jbolden1517 himself, and his behavior has been far worse than anything he's alleged against me.  If he wishes to bring an RfAr against me, that would be the time and place to discuss it. Pudge 18:21, 19 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Pudgenet failed to participate in a dispute resolution process in good faith
3) Pudgenet had content disagreements with has failed to resolve them via. conversation, the 2 mediations and the RFC process as a result of unwillingness to engage in dispute resolution in good faith.  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jbolden1517 (talk • contribs).


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * This is false. There's only been two content disputes; in the one, I have not edited the content in question since a week before mediation began (almost a month ago), and the fact that I could not in good conscience participate in what I believed was a flawed mediation process does not constitute a violation of good faith.  Indeed, Mediation implies nowhere that participation is obligatory (quite the contrary), especially considering I was not an active participant in the dispute at the time mediation began.


 * In the other dispute, no mediation has occurred, let alone been attempted. It was (I am told) mentioned in a comment to my talk page that I did not read, but that did not prevent -Barry- from beginning the process, or mentioning it on the appropriate talk page (for the article in question, where a discussion already existed about this dispute).  So, saying two mediations have occurred is, as best I can tell, not true, and it's a stretch to say that the (apparent) offer made constitutes a serious "attempt."


 * I also know of no RFC except for the one against -Barry-, and as that was not about me, and there was no reason I needed to participate in it, I don't know what the point of bringing that up here is. Pudge 18:21, 19 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * I also think this is false. I think mostly everybody went into the original content dispute re: Perl with good faith except others who are not the subject here. -- RevRagnarok  Talk Contrib Reverts 19:38, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Pudgenet has attempted to control content
4) Pudgenet attempt to control content in violation of WP:OWN by imposing a ban on -Barry- —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jbolden1517 (talk • contribs).


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * This dispute was resolved without incident about a month ago, and it makes no sense to bring it up here. Pudge 18:21, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
 * This wasn't resolved. Pudgenet failed to acknowledge any role in attempting to prevent -Barry- from editing the Perl article. though his attempts are well documented by myself and others. As I noted elsewhere, I am concerned at the lack of acceptance of a role in this that it may lead to future attempts to prevent editors from contributing content to articles in violation of WP:OWN. --Durin 18:45, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I strongly disagree, and I believe the facts do, too. What I did not do was acknolwedge that I actually took action to prevent him from editing Perl, because I did not: my threat, while improper, was idle.  I did not deny that what I actually did do -- which wasn't much -- was inappropriate.  The documentation on this is clear.  Further, this -- again -- happened now over a month ago, and Barry has made many edits since then, and I have made none, and I have neither said nor done anything to continue this, and most of his edits remain on the page.   There is absolutely no evidence that, in the more than a month since this has happened, that I have done this or anything similar to it again. I fail to see how this can be considered in any way unresolved, your unsubstantiated concern notwithstanding.  If your concern is that I did not explicitly state I was wrong, despite my many implications to that effect, then consider this such a statement.  Pudge 18:57, 19 June 2006 (UTC)


 * This section is somewhat ironic when viewed in light of the following quote. — Hex    (❝  ?!  ❞)   13:16, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
 * ''Maybe Wikipedia needs an Adopt a section program in which administrators decide that a certain section can be best maintained by one editor and that author is given exclusive editing rights. -Barry- | 18:22, 3 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Mediation has not been attempted in the main point of the dispute
5) As -Barry- has stated, the point of the RfAr is regarding Wikipedians with articles. No mediation has been attempted in this dispute, and arbitration is thus unsuitable for resolution of the dispute at this time. Pudge 18:21, 19 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * This is hair splitting. The dispute encompasses a number of articles, and primarily exists between Pudgenet and -Barry-, irrespective of an article in particular. --Durin 18:46, 19 June 2006 (UTC)


 * No, not according to -Barry-, the person who brought the RfAr. The RfAr is about the one dispute in one article.  If this were supposed to be about Perl, he first should not have said otherwise, and second he should have properly notified the other participants in the dispute. Pudge 19:08, 19 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I concur with Pudgenet that no mediation has been attempted on Wikipedians with articles dispute. I completely concur with Durin this is not the the topic of this RFAr.  Neither one of us would be involved if it were.  This dispute has been about an ongoing war between Pudgenet and Barry over a wide range of articles related to Perl (Wikipedia:Wikipedians with articles has some mention of a few Perl authors which is why they are going at it there).  There is no specific article, nor any specific site that these attacks have been limited to.  jbolden1517Talk  23:52, 19 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Pudge has a valid point of order. — Hex    (❝  ?!  ❞)   21:26, 19 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Pudgenet and -Barry- have no other active or ongoing disputes
6) Arbitration is to resolve disputes, and no other disputes, outside of Wikipedians with articles, currently exist, such that any dispute resolution, let alone arbitration, is necessary or warranted. Pudge 18:21, 19 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * We look at past conflicts also. Fred Bauder 18:22, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * There is an active and ongoing dispute which has so far not suffered solutions despite lengthy discussions on talk pages, an RfC and an RfM. --Durin 18:43, 19 June 2006 (UTC)


 * First, again, that dispute has nothing to do with me, since I have not edited that article in about a month. Second, the actual participants in that dispute were never notified about this RfAr, and thus have not had adequate oppportunity to respond. Pudge 19:09, 19 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Disputes don't have to be ongoing for them to be within the ArbCom's purview. Otherwise anyone could just take a Wikibreak as soon as anyone brings anything to ArbCom and get away scot-free.  ArbCom's purpose is larger than that: it essentially acts as a court of law, punishing troublemakers as well as actually arbitrating disputes as such. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 00:32, 20 June 2006 (UTC)


 * No matter how you slice it, the core of arbitration is dispute resolution. There is only one dispute in need of resolution between Barry and me, regarding his attempt to put uncivil comments about a user on Wikipedians with articles.  Everything else between us was already resolved, weeks ago. Pudge 04:24, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
 * In point of fact, you are mistaken. Arbitration functions primarily as dispute resolution, but not at all exclusively.  See another ongoing case, ../../Blu Aardvark, where the object has announced that he has no intention to return to Wikipedia.  Or another ongoing case, ../../Locke Cole, where the subject has also left Wikipedia.  In neither case is there an ongoing dispute; the cases have explicitly not been dismissed.  A dispute is not "resolved" just because it's temporarily stopped.  Whether the ArbCom wants to limit the case to the Wikipedians-with-articles thing in this particular case is up to them, but they don't have to. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 23:47, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Jbolden1517 vs. Pudgenet not under arbitration
7) The dispute between Jbolden1517 and Pudgenet may be significant, but is beyond the scope of this RfAr, as the RfAr does not mention it, and it is unreasonable to consider evidence on one side without a proper RfAr being done in which other interested parties may be notified, and existing parties may have the opportunity to consider actual and proper complaints being made, rather than trying to respond to unrelated charges being brought in the Evidence section. There are many people who have an interest in Jbolden1517's behavior regarding a dispute between him and me, and none of them were notified except Durin and me. A few others have commented here, finding out about the arbitration through other means, but none of them were properly made aware that this arbitration would involve general complaints by Jbolden1517 against me, and that's improper. Pudge 18:21, 19 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * In short I concur there are no open disputes between us subject to arbitration. Now here is the longer response.
 * Pudgenet as the defendant has the right to call any witnesses he'd like. There was an obligation to notify those parties involved which were Barry, Pudgenet, Durin and jbolden1517.  All are fully aware of this case.  So far Scapia, Harmil and Hex (all Perl guys) have testified on Pudgenet's behalf so he seems perfectly capable of calling defense witnesses.  Other than a potential threat of disrupting other cases I'm working on for medcab, there is no ongoing dispute between myself and Pudgenet (as of today, though this changes with his temper)  The Perl case before medcab has been closed as a failed mediation and I have no desire to re-involve myself after the conclusion of this RFAr .  As far as I'm concerned this is a disciplinary RFAr dealing with a problem editor who is in an escalating cycle of personal attacks against other editors in particular Barry. jbolden1517Talk  00:17, 20 June 2006 (UTC)


 * The implication that I called anyone is false. I notified no one.  The personal attack here about my "temper" deserves, if nothing else, an in-kind response: it's Jbolden's "temper" that caused him to delete many of my edits that admins told me, or him, were inappropriate of him to delete.  And as shown, it is also false that there is any cycle of personal attacks against Barry, let alone an escalating one, as I've said almost nothing to, or regarding, him for weeks.


 * More to the point, you have now admitted that you and I have no ongoing dispute. I have further proven beyond reasonable doubt that beyond a content dispute that has not yet been mediated, there has been no dispute between Barry and me for weeks.  So I think you're agreeing with me that there therefore is no dispute in need of resolution.  Pudge 04:18, 20 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Pudge didn't call me for anything. I became involved because Barry was vandalizing Perl. — Hex    (❝  ?!  ❞)   12:59, 20 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Again you appear to be unclear about the nature of arbitration, probably confused by the name. This case revolves around you, not any specific disputes you may have had with anyone else.  And even if -Barry- happened to mention only one specific point in starting this case, the ArbCom is fully entitled to treat related issues as well, and it has in the past. These related issues may, by the way, include the behavior of parties other than the defendant, and they have in the past.  If you care, you might want to consider assembling evidence against -Barry-. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 00:36, 20 June 2006 (UTC)


 * No, Simetrical, it is Jbolden who is bringing my disputes with him into this arbitration case. Similarly, it is Barry who is explicitly attempting to use this arbitration against me as a foundation to get his way on two different content disputes.


 * And no, I do not wish to bring up evidence against Barry. I have no desire, unlike some people, to go running for help from other people when someone else does something I don't like. Plus, I have a life, and while I could spend hours poring over someone else's edits and misrepresenting them, I'd rather not waste my valuable time doing so.


 * Finally, while the arbitrators are entitled to do anything they wish, I doubt they would rule on a. behavior that began and ended over a month ago, or b. a content dispute that the actual particpants in were not notified would be considered for arbitration. Pudge 04:18, 20 June 2006 (UTC)


 * As a "Perl guy", I am offended by the notion that I was called in as a defense witness. If you have evidence that I or any others were called in, please present it.  Otherwise, I request that you retract the baseless claim.


 * I also surprised to see the claim that Pudge was invloved in an "escalating cycle of personal attacks against other editors in particular Barry" considering the fact that -Barry- was criticized for "deliberately provoking anger and making people mistrust [his] edits" and characterized as an "anti-perl martyr".   Pudge has recanted and apologized for many of his actions and continued on civilly in Talk:Perl and Talk:Special rights while -Barry- has continued with the behavior that he was criticized for in mediation since the start of the Request for Arbitration, as noted in this diff.    Steve p 17:39, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Role of Pudgenet with respect to Perl
8) According to Pudgnet he is a significant figure with respect to Perl, and.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Submitted Fred Bauder 20:27, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * Disagree. Whether I am or not -- and I don't know -- I never claimed it. I did note that use Perl; is my site (well, more accurately, Barry said I claimed it was mine, pointing to a post on use Perl;, and I wondered why he used the word "claimed," since it is, in fact, my site), but this is not a claim of significance, only ownership. Pudge 01:57, 2 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Agreed. -- RevRagnarok  Talk Contrib Reverts 19:45, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Failure to communicate
9) Pudgenet fails to communicate appropriately with users he has disagreements with.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Proposed Fred Bauder 20:39, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * This is not quite accurate. My alleged incivility is only tangentially related to disagreement, but is instead related directly to personality and behavior conflicts.  I love disagreement.  Further, I don't see how the example provided is inappropriate (though I defer to your much more experienced judgment, I don't understand upon what it is based).  It is a fact that I do not care less what Barry has to say to me, and I thought it important that he knew that, since he kept incessantly coming after me on my talk page, and I didn't want him to keep wasting both our time.  Was that the inappropriate part, or is it inappropriate of me to delete his comments, and if so, where is the guideline stating or implying this? Pudge 12:03, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * If you choose to edit on Wikipedia you need to be able to communicate courteously with the other users who are editing the same articles as you. This includes those who are mistaken or perverse. The alternative is edit warring and the kind of rude namecalling and dismissal we have seen in this case. This is not the real world. I will write a principle above about experts. Fred Bauder 18:21, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree with this. I am not disagreeing that I -- or anyone -- should communicate better than I, in a few cases, have; I am disagreeing that my inappropriate edits were, at root, more than tangentially related to disagreement.  If, for example, Barry were a perfectly pleasant fellow who honestly believed the TIOBE data should be included on the Perl page, and on failing to convince anyone else, simply said, "OK, I disagree, but consensus wins," I'd not have done any of the things I did.  It was not the disagreement that led to my inappropriate edits, it was Barry's (and, later, Jbolden's) behavior within the disagreement that frustrated me to the point of acting inappropriately. Pudge 02:02, 2 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Wikistalking
10) Pudgenet has recently made some input to Talk:Special rights. It is the opinion of that Pudgenet is wikistalking him in an effort to interfere with a mediation being conducted regarding Special rights Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-06-09 Special rights . This anxiety is apparently based on Pudgenet's interference with the Perl mediation Talk:Perl_Mediation/Archive.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Proposed Fred Bauder 21:06, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * If I interfered, then it was only because I was told by an admin that what I was doing was not interference. So I'd say it is more proper to say based on my alleged interference, or his belief that I interfered. Other than that, I don't disagree with what you said: it is true that Jbolden believed I was wikistalking.  It is also true that I was not wikistalking.  I could have added posts to other articles he was mediating, but I didn't have anything to add to those.  I have a keen interest in the concept of Special Rights, and I had edited Jbolden's page, so it was in my watchlist automatically, and I saw his edit summary was "Special Rights," so I went over to this article, saw a deficiency, and added my thoughts.  I did not address Jbolden, and made sure to steer clear of his mediation process. Pudge 02:07, 2 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * I don't agree. If anything, I see the sited rv as a bias of Jbolden1517 against Pudgenet. I believe Pudgenet also noted somewhere else how/why he got involved, but I cannot find it right now. -- RevRagnarok  Talk Contrib Reverts 19:48, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Jbolden is just as guilty of "Wikistalking", having watched pudge's talk page like a hawk and then jumping all over mine when I commented there, within minutes:   .  It's clear from what he says that he had a very high view of his position as informal mediator in the mediation cabal.  He rejects primarily to the fact that his "authority" (which he does not possess) was not treated with respect.  Pudge did not "interfere" in a mediation process so much as refuse to feign respect for Jbolden's abilities as a mediator.  All of this "interference" is simply factual statements on pudge's part that he didn't think Jbolden could help, and this judgment doesn't seem to be far off. Jdavidb (talk &bull; contribs) 15:45, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Barry has made inappropriate accusations of vandalism
10) Faced with incivility and a content disagreement with Pudgenet  Barry responded with Template:Blatantvandal . Of the numerous canned messages Barry could have used (Template messages/User talk namespace) this one was perhaps the one least likely to produce a change in behavior. He then engaged in a quarrel with  posting this personal attack at Wikipedians with articles. Following Pudgenet's reaction  Barry followed up with a second Blantantvandal embellished with complaints and threats.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Proposed. The choice of Blatantvandal was a violation of civility, a provocation. Fred Bauder 13:10, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * So Barry is not so innocent after all. Fred Bauder 13:22, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Perhaps Barry simply does not know the difference between a content dispute and vandalism. His comments seem to show that. Fred Bauder 21:11, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * I "embellished" my first blatant vandal warning too, 14 minutes after I posted the template, by describing exactly what I was warning Pudgenet about. There should be a way to add the specific complaints to the template.


 * What you call a "content disagreement" I call blatant vandalism because Pudgenet put my name in the article without describing who I was, and he called my criticisms nonsensical without explaining. He then admitted that it was a "joke edit" numerous times. I searched for a better template and couldn't find one.


 * In my post about Scarpia, my "personal attack" is me referencing his blatant vandalism (same as Pudgenet's) and some of his other Wikipedia actions.


 * Wikipedians with articles says:
 * Another reason for this page is to notify the community that these Wikipedians are potential autobiographers, with the risks that entails for NPOV in articles relating to them and their work.
 * So I figured that pointing to some questionable (to put it lightly) posts by Scarpia would help notify readers of what the page is supposed to notify them of. When Pudgenet reverted it, I sought an administrator's advice and took it to the talk page where it was decided that I should add links to Scarpia's questionable posts but no link text, which I did, but I still say that my description of Scarpia's edits was appropriate, especially if the pages containing Scarpia's edits will be linked to.
 * Describing someone as a "Wikipedia vandal" is completely over the top. Having a different point of view does not make someone a "vandal". Fred Bauder 19:00, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I changed the definition of vandalism . -Barry- 22:56, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Um. Modifying core policy documents to support your position is not cool or advisable. Anyway, your edit lasted all of one minute before it got reverted. — Hex    (❝  ?!  ❞)   23:30, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I guess it's not advisable to revert war over it either, so I started this discussion. -Barry- 23:39, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with this finding, and, indeed, it is one of my primary problems with Barry: not his disagreement with me, but his incivility. I do not, of course, offer this as an excuse for any of my behavior, which can have no excuse.  However, in regards to whether my edit was vandalism, I think Barry's edits ("sux" and so on) that precipitated mine was vandalism ... especially, ironically, if you take Barry's redefinition of it.  I was trying to make that point with my edit, and that was poor judgment. Pudge 02:13, 2 July 2006 (UTC)


 * "Sux" was a direct quote from Brian D Foy's slides, which I linked to. If the slides added some context that's important (and even if they didn't), I wouldn't object to adding more information from the slides. The "sux" quote was just deleted rather than clarified. My adding the quote wasn't vandalism. When you reverted it here, you just called it sloppy writing. -Barry- 04:02, 2 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * In case it is still relevant, I am a neutral party - arrived from WP:VAN discussion here. I think the link that purports to show the alleged 'vandalism' act that elicited Barry's vandalism remark is pointing to the wrong diff. This is the correct one, which I personally believe is vandalism, in that to me it is clear that inserting a personal attack on editors inside article space is clearly not an intent to improve the article and hence vandalism. Crum375 01:08, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah. Thanks Crum375. -Barry- 06:23, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree. Barry claimed vandalism when the referenced edit was removal of an unreliable source. That specific edit was flogged to death on the Talk page where it was shown that the whole 'sux' quote was taken out of context. And this edit to me shows that Barry truly "doesn't get it" when comparing edits to vandalism. -- RevRagnarok  Talk Contrib Reverts 19:54, 29 June 2006 (UTC) (Comment withdrawn, it is a confusing edit and I only saw the top half using popups... --  RevRagnarok  Talk Contrib Reverts 20:45, 29 June 2006 (UTC))


 * There is clearly vandalism here (see "Further, the fact that people..." at the bottom right), and Barry was right to flag it as such. The confusing part is that in the same edit there was real content plus vandalism, but IMO vandalism is always vandalism, regardless of any other attached component. That Barry went and tried to change the WP definition of vandalism while he was personally involved in arbitration is probably bad form, but IMO there was no need for it as the existing definition and policy would support his allegation of vandalism, as I noted in the WP:VAN discussion. Crum375 20:33, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, that content added here is vandalism. Pudge admitted and apologized for it.  But, can you say for certain that this edit wasn't by accident?  Scarpia reverted several changes made by Pudge and -Barry-, and if he didn't read over every edit completely, its easy to explain what happened.  Assuming good faith, accidents are not WP:VAN.  I think that had good faith been assumed, this conflict under arbitration may have been completely avoided.  Steve p 20:54, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree, see my note about the same topic below. Crum375 21:12, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Personal attacks by Barry
11) Barry has made personal attacks on Scarpia, another Perl guru, characterizing him as a "Wikipedia vandal" with respect to his editing of Perl.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Proposed, need to look at what Scarpia was doing Fred Bauder 13:31, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Scarpia;s edit Comment is rude, but this is a content dispute (with Scarpia on the right side) not vandalism. Fred Bauder 13:36, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * See this for my description of the Scarpia issue.


 * Specifically, see this, this, and this edit summary and you'll see that I tried explaining these things to Scarpia and he wanted no part of rational discussion. I think it's because he couldn't defend his actions. I point to Scarpia's actual vandalism in the edits that Scarpia commented on (dismissed) with those edit summaries, and in several parts of this workshop page. -Barry- 01:06, 30 June 2006 (UTC)


 * None of what Barry links to is reasonably labeled vandalism by Scarpia, unless you ignore WP:AGF.


 * Comment by others:
 * As I noted elsewhere, inserting personal attacks as in this edit (see "Further, the fact that people..." at bottom right) in article space is clearly vandalism, as it is clearly not intended to improve the article. As I also noted elsewhere, the same edit has both vandalism plus real content, but the vandalism part trumps or taints anything else, IMO. Crum375 20:48, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Also as explained in the previous section, this edit can also be explained by an inattentive reversion. Assuming good faith, that edit cannot be attributed to more than an accident.  Steve p 21:01, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, I can see how someone by reverting a combination vandalism/content edit can make it accidentally pop back in, especially when the vandalism part is hiding at the bottom. I guess it is up to the person labeling the edit or editor to decide if it was intentional or not. Clearly the first editor to insert a personal attack into article space is a vandal. Crum375 21:09, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Not really, they are just a user who has made a mistake by making a personal attack. Fred Bauder 03:20, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Are you saying that in your opinion a personal attack which is intentionally inserted inside an article is not vandalism? Crum375 04:03, 2 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Here's what the paragraph under dispute said:
 * Further, the fact that people like -Barry- and Shlomi Fish keep cranking out nonsensical criticisms and no one seems to care anymore could be seen as a decline in the interest of Perl, although it could mean that Perl is so well-established that there's no point in shouting down the haters.
 * It could be argued that it's not vandalism if the author thought it was an appropriate addition that would improve the article. Since I'm not really notable enough to be included in the article, and it wasn't explained who I was or what was "nonsensical," and especially since Pudgenet called it a joke, it's clearly vandalism. -Barry- 04:17, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Inappropriate proliferation of dispute by Barry
12) Since the original dispute began (specifically, over the insertion of several links into Perl by -Barry-) on Talk:Perl, Barry has spread it over a wide range of pages: Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-05-23 Perl, Talk:Perl Mediation, Talk:Perl Mediation/OpinionSection, Wikipedia:Good articles/Disputes, this very page, and most recently even tangentially on Wikipedia talk:Vandalism. Barry has continued to spread out his argument despite a notable and demonstrable consensus by all other editors of Perl to remove the links in question.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * I proposed this. Note: this is background material relating to Barry's conduct, and should not be implied as attempting to involve this Arbitration in the Perl dispute which is a separate matter. — Hex    (❝  ?!  ❞)   10:33, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Please use links to diffs or archived pages (clicking a date in the edit history will bring you to an archived version of the page, which won't change). The Perl good article dispute has been badly truncated, and it's now archived. I discuss the bad truncation here. Linking this way is good too. As long as a permanent version is linked to. -Barry- 20:13, 7 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * I agree. This all started when Barry was trying to add unsubstantiated 'data' to Perl, which then caused me to request mediation. I think the wrong person has the RFA right now. -- RevRagnarok  Talk Contrib Reverts 19:57, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Misrepresentation of this Arbitration by Barry
13) In the course of spreading the dispute over Perl (see the previous proposed finding), Barry has misrepresented this Arbitration as "possibly" being over the content of the Perl article, when it specifically is not.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed this. — Hex    (❝  ?!  ❞)   10:33, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Agree. It's obvious from that diff that this is being misrepresented. -- RevRagnarok  Talk Contrib Reverts 19:58, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Content dispute regarding Perl
14) Barry is involved on the losing side of a content dispute at Perl. He seeks relief regarding content which we are unable to grant, see and the first and third temporary injunctions proposed by Barry.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Proposed Fred Bauder 19:10, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * If ArbCom is unable to grant my content requests, is it because they lack the necessary knowledge of Perl, or because of policy restrictions, or unreliable sources, or lack of importance, or what? It would be nice to have an opinion of whether the article would be better with my additions even if you won't be deciding to add them. Do the arbitrators recommend further mediation? -Barry- 20:09, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


 * As for what started this arbitration, it was the links that I wanted to add to Scarpia's entry, which were agreed to on the talk page of Wikipedians with articles. Which raises the question, is Fred Bauder proposing that the content disputes for only the Perl article not be granted, or Wikipedians with articles too? With the latter, the talk page seems to show I have majority approval for the links. It's the opposite with Perl. It would be kind of strange for me to lose both. Not that I think anything should be considered other than improving the pages, but in that case, I should win both. (My opinion, of course.) -Barry- 20:19, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * We don't do content disputes. The proposed decision I have written would require you to abandon these issues and let others decide them. Fred Bauder 20:26, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh, so I wasted my time from the beginning. Here you imply that this was a content dispute framed as a behavior dispute. Not by me it wasn't. I just didn't want to revert Jbolden1517. I put more importance on improving the content of Wikipedia than on punishing Pudgenet for bad behavior. I guess ArbCom works the other way around. Well, actually, I'm confused about how ArbCom works. I read the following here:


 * Question: When will we have an arbitration committee for article content disputes?


 * Answer: We do take them on; we merely foresee that it is unlikely that this will be the bulk of our work.


 * And I'd noticed that arbitrators who vote on whether to hear a case sometime mention what parts they won't deal with. None did for this case. And in this case, the content dispute has gone through mediation, as required before taking it to ArbCom. But whatever... -Barry- 21:18, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Agreed. As I said above, that's what started all this. -- RevRagnarok  Talk Contrib Reverts 19:59, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Pudgenet "bans" Barry
15) Frustrated by Barry's editing and complaints, Pudgenet issued a "ban" on Barry editing Perl.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Proposed Fred Bauder 19:31, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * I am grateful to Fred for mentioning Pudge's frustration due to Barry. I feel this is a key issue in this matter. — Hex    (❝  ?!  ❞)   21:22, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Agreed. Pudgenet was definitely wrong in that quote. -- RevRagnarok  Talk Contrib Reverts 20:01, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Pudge has also agreed in statements since that this was wrong. Steve p 03:30, 30 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Pudgenet has also said "I don't, however, retract a thing I've said against Barry or jbolden. That's not to say I am saying I was right, just that I don't feel bad about it." -Barry- 04:32, 30 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Barry, that's taken out of context. I don't feel like explaining why it doesn't apply, so instead I'll just note that the statement you're quoting came weeks ago, and I have several times since then stated explicitly that I was wrong, and those more recent statements obviously take precedence (if indeed the first statement did apply, which it does not). Pudge 01:30, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

jbolden1517 inappropriately edited Pudgenet's user page
16) jbolden1517 placed his accusation of wiki-stalking on Pudgenet's actual user page instead of Pudgenet's user talk page. This action was inappropriate.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed. — Hex    (❝  ?!  ❞)   21:32, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Originally it was claimed this was vandalism. That claim seems to be gone, but regardless a dose of WP:AGF should be applied here. It seems obvious it was intended to be placed on Pudge's talk page, rather than his user page. It's simply an error. It was later appropriately moved by Pudge to his talk page. --Durin 22:32, 30 June 2006 (UTC)


 * AGF is a nice principle, but Jbolden -- as is quite clear from his "evidence" against me -- does not follow said principle himself. Not that this is not a reason to not follow it ... but OTOH, I never made a huge deal out of his misdeed/mistake there, except to make note of it.  Too bad he's not as forgiving and accepting of mistakes as I am. Pudge 01:25, 2 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * I agree. This is probably an example of the fireman adding fuel to the fire, but since the fireman seems to be gone for now, this point is fairly tangential to the case. Crum375 21:57, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Pudgenet engaged in attention-seeking vandalism
1) As seen on Wikipedia:Vandalism, "Adding insults, using offensive usernames, replacing articles with jokes etc." is considered attention-seeking vandalism. Pudgenet engaged in attention-seeking vandalism here by saying "Hey asshole, we're not going to let you continue to pollute the Perl article with your bullshit. Playtime is over. Time for the grownups to step in." -Barry- 04:41, 6 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Now you're just being incredibly silly. It is a talk page, it's not vandalism.  It was a plain old personal attack. Please stop trying to redefine vandalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pudgenet (talk • contribs)


 * Comment by others:
 * This is ridiculous. The diff given was on a talk page not an article page. To quote the same page (my emphasis):
 * "What vandalism is not: Harassing or Making Personal Attacks: We have a clear policy on Wikipedia of no personal attacks, and harassing other contributors is not allowed. Some forms of harassment are also clear cases of vandalism, such as home page vandalism. However, harassment is not in general vandalism."
 * There has already been claim about harassment. Trying to make another bullet point seems to be part of a vendetta. -- RevRagnarok  Talk Contrib Reverts 10:43, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Pudgenet engaged in Talk Page vandalism
2) As seen on Wikipedia:Vandalism, Talk page vandalism applies to the user's own Talk page "in cases of warnings, which they are generally prohibited from removing, especially where the intention of the removal is to mislead other editors." Pudgenet has engaged in Talk page vandalism by removing at least two warnings from his talk page. . -Barry- 04:41, 6 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * That's a new one. I vandalized my own talk page!  First of all, you are misrepresenting WP:Vandalism.  It does not say that what you describe is vandalism.  I know, -Barry-, you are shaking your head vigorously right now and saying "yes, it does!!!," but really, no, it does not.  It says that users cannot delete comments from talk pages, except your own talk page, where you can delete any comments you want except for, generally speaking, warnings.  That does not state, nor imply, that such warning deletions are vandalism, only that it is something that you, generally speaking, do not do.


 * Further, in case you still don't get it, you do not get to give me a warning and require me to care about it. Period.  As to Durin's warning, he didn't seem to think it was a big deal, and he never brought it up, that I recall.  That's between him and me, unless he cares to complain about it. And it's not vandalism in any case. Pudge 07:04, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * "I vandalized my own talk page!" &mdash; there's a somewhat valid point, see below. -- RevRagnarok  Talk Contrib Reverts 10:51, 6 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * I strongly disagree here. Yes, normally removing a warning from a talk page is vandalism. But if I were actively in conflict with you, and I put a warning template on your page, would you leave it? With the way that JBolden was erasing anything involving Pudge, do you think he would've left a warning on his page put there by Pudge? Additionally, I have not read all the details of WP rules, but I would assume that going through this arbitration process would remove any flags from your record anyway if you were exonerated, and if sanctions were taken, there would be new flags placed on it (replacing the old). -- RevRagnarok  Talk Contrib Reverts 10:51, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

-Barry- has made a large number of useful edits to Perl
19) -Barry- has made many contributions to Perl, including vandalism reversion, minor tweaks to wording or formatting (, , , , , , , , etc.), and additions and removals of content. Although many of the latter were contested and reverted, others remain partially or wholly in the present version, presumably indicating that the editors at Perl deemed them useful.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 02:53, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

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.

Personal attack parole
1) Pudgenet is placed on personal attack parole. He may be briefly blocked if he engages in personal attacks for up to a week in the case of repeat violations. After 5 blocks the maximum block shall increase to one year. jbolden1517Talk 00:42, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * I don't think this is necessary. If he keeps it up I think it is better to just ban him for a year. Fred Bauder 12:11, 30 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * Strong concur with RevRagnarok (below). — Hex    (❝  ?!  ❞)   11:51, 30 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Sounds reasonable but I think it should apply to -Barry- as well. -- RevRagnarok  Talk Contrib Reverts 20:06, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I concur with Fred. Incrementalism is IMO lame.  Bad behavior should be punished, nipped in the bud.  You don't drag it out.  This necessarily applies to me, to Barry, to Jbolden (should he ever return), and all the rest of us. The main problem I have here is that Jbolden implies I am guilty of incessant personal attacks when a. his evidence against me is mostly fabricated (the things he links to do not support his claims), as the actual examples of "personal attacks" by me are very few, and b. he is as guilty as I am, except he didn't use the same naughty word I did.  Again, same with Barry (except he did call me names). Pudge 01:22, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Arbitration Dismissed
2) There's no dispute, properly submitted, in need of arbitration. It should be summarily dismissed, with a suggestion to -Barry- to attempt mediation in the Wikipedians with articles dispute, and to Jbolden1517 to properly submit a RfAr against Pudgenet if he feels it is warranted. Pudge 18:24, 19 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * The very existence of the ample evidence presented and lengthy commentary regarding the evidence stands in opposition to the idea that there is no dispute. The case brought here is Pudgenet's disruption, as originally filed, and continues as Pudgenet's general behavior with regards to a number of editors. Whether Pudgenet is in the wrong on various points or no, it is blatantly obvious that a dispute does exist which has spilled over into multiple articles, resulted in lengthy discussions on talk pages, an RfC and an RfM, all of which failed to resolve the situation. Arbitration is not only warranted, but needed to prevent continued negative outcomes from this dispute which still continues; observe the current state of Pudgenet's user page of which about 50% is devoted to complaints in regards to User:-Barry-. --Durin 18:41, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
 * concur with Durin jbolden1517Talk 10:30, 22 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Almost all of the evidence Jbolden has provided is false; it is ample, but the quantity of it does not overcome its falseness. The evidence you and Barry provide is about disputes that have not been ongoing since weeks before this process began. Pudge 19:12, 19 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

WP:1RR
3) Pudgenet shall for one year be limited to one revert on Perl related articles, or those sections of any other articles relating to Perl the language, biographical information about people in the Perl community, comparisons of other languages with Perl....  jbolden1517Talk  00:21, 20 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Given that I have not edited Perl since a week before mediation began (which is when Jbolden first got involved), this is clearly a resolution in search of a dispute. Insofar as it may apply to the only actual dispute this RfAr is pertaining to, considering that whole dispute started with Barry making a blatant personal attack, it seems entirely unbalanced.  Pudge 03:55, 20 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Given that this RfAr was created for a dispute over Wikipedians with articles, this remedy is irrelevant and inappropriate. — Hex    (❝  ?!  ❞)   22:51, 19 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Per Kate's tool, as of 19:41, 20 June 2006 (UTC), Pudgenet has a total of 35 edits in article space. How many of those have been reverts? Jdavidb (talk &bull; contribs) 19:41, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Mediation probation
4)
 * Pudgenet shall be banned from joining any page under mediation to which he has not previously edited in the last 6 months. This may be enforced by any administrator
 * He further can be banned from any article under mediation for the duration of mediation by any administrator or the mediator.
 * Hs is cautioned against attempting to undermine Wikipedia's dispute resolution in any other manner.
 * Failure to abide by any of the above bans shall be punishable by block of up to one year enforceable by any administrator.
 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Written by jbolden1517. This is designed to protected mediator and articles.  Since mediation may need to resume (with another mediator) on many of the Perl related articles this is needed to hopefully prevent a reoccurrence of what occurred on the Perl article.
 * This is nonsense. I had something to add to the discussion, and did so, and I did not interfere with anything, and there is not a single example of me undermining any dispute resolution process, despite Jbolden's many claims to the contrary, as everything I did that he calls "interference" was explicitly, by Durin, said to be acceptable. Pudge 03:59, 20 June 2006 (UTC)


 * This is uncalled-for, vindictive, dishonest, and unfair. — Hex    (❝  ?!  ❞)   13:05, 20 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Being a participant of the mediation, I do not believe that Pudge's actions had anything to do with the failed mediation. Pudge did ask other editors to refrain from becoming part of the mediation, however, it did not effect my participation, and I have not been   attacked or felt threatened for doing so.  As such, I feel this rememdy is unnecessary.
 * One problem with this proposed remedy is what the definition of an edit is. Some people fix vanadalism on pages they otherwise never looked at before.  Some people go around fixing grammar and typos.  Some people make sweeping changes to articles.  Some people are just involved in the talk pages.  Should someone be banned for fixing blatant vandalism on a page if they have no knowledge that it is under mediation, or even the person does know?  This remedy would allow punishments in just such a case.
 * Second, this rememdy seems to treat a symptom, not to a cause. If someone is making personal attacks, they should be punished for making personal attacks.  If someone is positively contributing to a page, they should not be punished.  This seems very obvious to me.  Steve p 14:41, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I think this is kinda bogus, it looks like JBolden1517's wikistalking claims all over again. -- RevRagnarok  Talk Contrib Reverts 20:08, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Require Pudgenet to allow my replies on his talk page
5) This demonstrates the problems caused by Pudgenet deleting my posts to his talk page regarding comments made about me. He even talks about me on his user page, and I'm unable to respond. Posts about me by others are probably unavoidable. If Pudgenet isn't banned, my replies to posts about me should be required to remain for as long as the posts about me remain, whether the posts are on Pudgenet's user page or talk page. -Barry- 00:04, 21 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * What I said above: "If somebody wants to do things with their talk page, it's their page". I had a small dispute like this with somebody who was later banned who insisted on putting junk on my talk page. The diffs are always there, -Barry- can put links to them on his talk page 'for posterity' if that is the concern. -- RevRagnarok  Talk Contrib Reverts 20:13, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Barry banned from Perl
1) Barry is banned indefinitely from Perl and its talk page and from making any edit with respect to Pudgenet or Scarpia.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Based on his provocative troublemaking both in editing the article and in relating to Pudgenet and Scarpia. Fred Bauder 13:39, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * This is pretty much what was requested in the first place when I put in the original request for mediation. -- RevRagnarok  Talk Contrib Reverts 13:49, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Takes a while to figure out what was happening. I'll try to explain it to the other arbitrators. Fred Bauder 18:34, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * You may wish to consider other Perl-related pages as well. -Barry-'s first few named edits on Wikipedia were to the Perl Monks page appear to be made to provoke.     -Barry- returned to the Perl Monks page during the arbitration with the following provacative edits.    Steve p 06:49, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Pudgenet banned for personal attacks
2) Pudgenet is banned one day for personal attacks and warned to respond courteously to editing conflicts or provocation.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Proposed, not Ok to call other users assholes Fred Bauder 13:42, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * It's a fair cop. Pudge 12:12, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Pudgenet warned
3) Pudgenet is warned that whatever his status on the net, here he is just another user, and a newbie at that. Further disruptive behavior will be dealt with harshly. Play nice.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Proposed Fred Bauder 19:39, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Toned down a bit. Fred Bauder 00:54, 3 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * Above, Pudge says "I love disagreement". Based on his actions relative to the disagreements he has had, his sort of disagreement is wholly unwelcome here. Indeed, play nice. --Durin 22:38, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Durin, this is quite incorrect. My actions you are complaining about were only tangentially related to disagreement, as is clear from the record. Pudge 01:16, 2 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Disagree. I think that Pudgenet only claims his "status" on his User page, and -Barry- is the one who brought it up in Talk:Perl. I don't remember any holier-than-thou claims made by him, but I could be wrong. -- RevRagnarok  Talk Contrib Reverts 20:16, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I know a MUD God when I see one. Fred Bauder 20:27, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

[outdenting] I don't understand this comment. And I've not seen Pudge attempt any kind of rank pulling, so I disagree with this proposed remedy. — Hex    (❝  ?!  ❞)   23:42, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I've never used a MUD. And I have no idea what status you are referring to, nor what "arrogant behavior" you are complaining about. Any perceived arrogance you think I have, to the extent it does exist (as everyone, I have an Id and Ego), is wholly unrelated to whatever social status you think I think I have, as I am no respector of persons, including myself.  If I were, I'd have blasted Barry for being some know-nothing outsider or some nonsense, but my criticisms of him and his actions were focused entirely on what he did, not who he was (or who I was).  Same with Jbolden. Pudge 01:16, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Just quit doing itFred Bauder 03:16, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Quit doing what? If you are referring to the few things I've already apologized for, that's a given.  If you are referring to some sort of arrogant behavior, I deny I am guilty of the charge. Pudge 20:02, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
 * It's a warning, and I don't see how anyone could disagree with it. It's simply a statement that status elsewhere on the net doesn't grant special authority on Wikipedia.  The tone is clear from "play nice." Jdavidb (talk &bull; contribs) 15:52, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I can disagree with it, because he is explicitly saying I am guilty of "arrogant behavior," and implicitly saying this has something to do with some sort of status I supposedly think I have. None of it is true. Pudge 01:16, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Personal attack parole
X) Pudgenet and -Barry- are placed on personal attack parole. Either may be briefly blocked if he engages in personal attacks, for up to two weeks in the case of repeat violations. If either one is unblocked under this remedy for six months, he will no longer be under personal attack parole.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Could someone show me where I personally attacked someone? I did say "Until now I didn't realize that such elite Perl gurus fall into my 'immature idiots' category" in response to Pudgenet's "Hey asshole, we're not going to let you continue to pollute the Perl article with your bullshit. Playtime is over. Time for the grownups to step in." I'm not sure whether there's something else. -Barry- 20:27, 3 July 2006 (UTC)


 * First of all, you did make personal attacks before that, such as here, when you were starting your vendetta against brian d foy. Second, saying your personal attack only came after another attack is no justification, as you should well know, since most of the claims you have against me were in direct retaliation to your own actions. Pudge 16:29, 5 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The closest thing to a personal attack in that diff is me saying "Brian D Foy apparently wants attention," which I said before I thought he was a Wikipedia editor. I re-added it to the talk page because Scarpia wrongly reverted the entire post in which I say that. In that post I seek concensus on whether to use "Brian D Foy" or "brian d foy." And note that I didn't call his reversion vandalism. I'm thinking it though. -Barry- 18:35, 5 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The "closest thing to a personal attack in that diff" is, in fact, a personal attack. Pudge 20:04, 5 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed. -Barry- has made some attacks as well, so it's reasonable to put him under parole as well.  I've also dropped the possibility of a one-year block, which is really excessive, and limited the parole itself so it doesn't have to hand over their heads for all eternity if they behave for a while.  I really don't think a one-day ban of Pudgenet serves any purpose at all; allow him to contribute constructively as much as he wants, but while he has apologized, relapse is always a possibility, and this remedy would require that an entirely new case be brought if it occurs. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 20:13, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Er, this was intended as a compromise since Fred didn't seem to agree with the normal PAP wording, which seems redundant now. But you can use it anyway if you like. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 20:17, 3 July 2006 (UTC)


 * This is pointless. If someone violates a rule, hold them accountable for it.  How about Ideogram and Jbolden1517, both of whom have personally attacked me as well?  What about people who have not done so; should they be able to?  And how about your significant misrepresentations of me in Requests_for_comment/-Barry- (for example, I never said AGF is inapplicable or bullshit; quite clearly, I merely said that -Barry- had proven bad faith, as per WP:AGF, which says to AGF "unless there is clear and present evidence to the contrary"), which, given your overt dislike of me and expressed favor toward ArbCom action against me, could arguably be taken to amount to personal attacks as well?


 * I don't mean to make this about you, and won't bother to discuss your actions regarding me further; I only bring it up to point out that most everyone is guilty of this or similar, and the solution is not to hang something over one person's head and not another's, it's to hold everyone to the same standards. What I dislike most about this sort of proposal, apart from me not getting how it serves anything to have "tiers of responsibility" to follow the rules, is that it then creates an opening for bad actors who might not have such a warning over their heads. They can feel free, perhaps, to engage in attacks, knowing that the other party is not able to respond in kind; not that he should, but it can become an encouragement or inducement to other parties.


 * I just see such proposals as useless. I do understand your concern about a one-day ban, but I disagree; it's a slap on the wrist for past behavior, and sends the message that the behavior is not acceptable, and will not be tolerated, but does not unduly interfere with future editing like a Damocles Sword does. I don't disagree that punishments should take past behavior into account, but some sort of official "parole" is, to my mind, counterproductive; further, having a ban on my "record" certainly serves to inform administrators who may be addressing any future misdeeds I may perform, in a less formal, but just as (if not more) effective, way. Pudge 16:29, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I never personally attacked you. (Alleging in an RFC that someone else violated policy is not a personal attack per se.)  Others may have on occasion; however, their personal attacks have not been as constant or aggressive as yours have been, to the best of my knowledge.  And while I wouldn't be against some kind of personal attack parole for everyone on Wikipedia, i.e. making WP:NPA a blockable offense, that's not currently policy here, and so I have to make do with what proposals I can. As for AGF, I said "He has suggested that WP:AGF is inapplicable (in fact 'bullshit')", where applicable is taken to mean "applicable to the situation in question" (as it generally does without qualification).  The parenthetical note about your exact choice of words could be construed as saying that you said AGF generally was bullshit, but that was unintentional, since you didn't say that.  I continue to strongly feel that you construe AGF much too narrowly. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 04:51, 7 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I disagree with your interpretation of what was said, but I won't dwell on it because it is beside the point, which is merely that I find the proposal to be subuseful. Even if you are not guilty of NPA -- I was stretching it to make the point, and I never asserted you did in fact make a personal attack, only noted that it could be argued -- certainly, without qualification, Ideogram, Jbolden1517, and Barry have done so.


 * On the other point, I think you construe AGF far too broadly. AGF clearly states to Assume that others intend to follow the policies and guidelines of WP participation, unless there is clear and present evidence to the contrary.  We have ample evidence that Barry has been, and continues even in this arbitration (for example, his continuing requests for the arbitrators to resolve a content dispute in Perl despite not notifying any of the active editors in that dispute, beside himself, of the arbitration), actively working to undermine the policies and guidelines of WP participation.  I state that without reservation, as do many of the other editors, as does (apparently?) the one arbitrator to comment on the situation ... even if you disagree with it, you're in a clear minority. Pudge 15:55, 7 July 2006 (UTC)


 * No, not even close to apparently, if you talking about Fred Bauder accusing me of "actively working to undermine the policies and guidelines of WP participation," unless I missed it. -Barry- 19:10, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Template
1) {text of proposed remedy}


 * 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:

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: