Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Zacheus-jkb/Workshop

This is a page for working on Arbitration decisions. The Arbitrators, parties to the case, and other editors may draft proposals and post them to this page for review and comments. Proposals may include proposed general principles, findings of fact, remedies, and enforcement provisions&mdash;the same format as is used in Arbitration Committee decisions. The bottom of the page may be used for overall analysis of the /Evidence and for general discussion of the case.

Any user may edit this workshop page. Please sign all suggestions and comments. Arbitrators will place proposed items they believe should be part of the final decision on the /Proposed decision page, which only Arbitrators may edit, for voting.

Renaming the case
1) Could you please rename the case to -jkb- v. Zacheus? I am not the plaintiff. —Zacheus Talk • Contributions • Edit counter 15:32, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Arbitration, in general, makes no distinction between "plaintiff" and "defendant"; the behavior of all parties is under equal scrutiny. Kirill 15:36, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * But I think it is a good tradition to place the initiator of the proceedings to the first place. —Zacheus Talk • Contributions • Edit counter 15:07, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The casename is not important, and is not going to change at this point. I recommend that you focus on the more substantive issues. Newyorkbrad 15:43, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, I think I have responded to every accusation. If I am wrong, please let me know. —Zacheus Talk • Contributions • Edit counter 09:35, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Suspension
2) I will be off wiki till 9 July 2007, that's why I ask for the process suspension till that day. Thanks. —Zacheus Talk • Contributions • Edit counter 08:02, 28 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * jkb has not edited since 17 June. --Kaypoh 13:02, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Given that both editors seem inactive, and there are many other cases pending, it is unlikely that the arbitrators will reach this case before July 9 anyway, so formal action on a suspension of the case seems not to be needed. Newyorkbrad 13:14, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Pavel Voženílek
3) A problematic Wikipedian Pavel Voženílek has presented his highly biased "evidence" against me. He thus became a member of the plaintiff party and that's why I ask for formal inclusion in that in order him to be a subject of all measures of teh ArbCom, especially Wikipedia Is Not a Forum for Disputes from Elsewhere. —Zacheus Talk • Contributions • Edit counter 14:57, 13 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
2)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
3)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
4)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Questions posed by Newyorkbrad

 * Question to Zacheus:
 * Please comment briefly on the "additional evidence" posted on the evidence page by -jkb- on July 7.
 * My comments to Che's notes:
 * Information about -jkb- was in cs:Upravení vztahu s ČSSR for about an hour. ??? When I use cs: articles as a source, I always study their history as well, especially in cases when their author is Rosta, because such articles were deteriorated by Che or others in most cases.
 * It did not include personal details that were added to "Reconcilee" four days later by Zacheus. ??? When I met -jkb- personally, he gave me his business card and did not say his real name is secret, but rather insisted he was a public person deserving his own Wikipedia article. The equation -jkb- = Jan Koukal was well known to everybody participating to that meeting.
 * Zacheus claims he never said -jkb- was a Communist secret police agent. x   sockpuppet edit of Zacheus, claiming -jkb- was probably a Communist secret police agent (checkuser confirmation) After a year and half of constant harassment on cs: I finally lost my nerves and I did on cs: on 5 June 2006 series of stupid edits for which I apologize. I am sorry that I did not take into account what I made in that bad day on cs:.
 * Has there been any inappropriate behavior toward you on the English Wikipedia since this case was filed (other than issues arising from the filing of this case itself)?
 * As far as I know it has not. —Zacheus Talk • Contributions • Edit counter 09:38, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Question to -jkb-:
 * Has there been any inappropriate behavior toward you on the English Wikipedia by Zacheus within the past one month? three months? six months?
 * There are some edits (like [], another one – now deleted – was here, another ones were deleted without I made a notice). But  User:Zacheus used a sort of hidden and subtile attacks very often, not saying directly or exactly this or this. See e.g. on Meta on more pages of the m:Wikimedia Czech Republic: after I have inserted myself in the list of interested users (7th May 2007), Zacheus edited these pages several times demanding that the statutes/bylaws should prohibit the membership for all agents of the old communistic secret police StB (], ], ], ], ],], ],), partly highly aggressive. As User:Pavel Vozenilek stated (Statement by uninvolved* Pavel Vozenilek), these attacks were persistent, not only a fault or the result of a blue mood one afternoon.  Small notes to the points given by Zacheus above: firstly – I gave him no bussiness card but a private one, and I did not mention, that I wish to make a connection between my real name and my name on wikipedia, in contrary, so according to the rules here nobody was entitled to do so; secondly – that I would be a public person etc is a total nonsence, I never said something like this; thirdly, equation -jkb- = Jan Koukal was known only to two other people – but Zacheus published these informations everywhere, no one else; the point 3 is a nonsence as well as Zacheus used to publish such attacks many more times; all this can be wittnessed by User:Mormegil or cs:User:Mormegil, an admin-bureaucrat on cs.wiki since those days, who took part in the session. -jkb-  (cs.source) 16:24, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * P.S. By the way, the last edit concerning agents of the secret police StB is here dated today in the morning. -jkb- (cs.source) 19:09, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * My reaction:
 * Maybe someone shall explain to -jkb- meaning of the words the English Wikipedia.
 * Maybe someone shall explain to -jkb- meaning of the term business card (navštívenka) and a private card (soukromá karta).
 * I did not mention, that I wish to make a connection between my real name and my name on wikipedia Yes and I did not do it.
 * that I would be a public person etc is a total nonsence, I never said something like this You lie. I ask witnesses User:Mormegil and cs:User:Malýčtenář (another victim of -jkb-'s cronies) to confirm my version.
 * I wrote about public person Jan Koukal on my blog, I confirm.
 * the point 3 is a nonsense It is not. —Zacheus Talk • Contributions • Edit counter 06:32, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, I would prefer the WM ČR without agents of the StB. Why do you point to that? What is the connection to this case? —זכי Talk • Contributions • Edit counter 15:40, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Ad Zacheus 1: Point 4 in your claim from 06:32, 10 July 2007: you wanted to ask your witnesses. Did you??? Well, I did. -jkb- (cs.source) 15:41, 1 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Ad Zacheus 2: Point 4 and 5 in your claim from 06:32, 10 July 2007: can you show me one place or page in the whole internet, from where it can be implicated that I ever have been a public person anywhere? Good luck and I wish you a flat rate for your internet access
 * You've been an editor of the known trotskyist exile magazine. That makes you a public person. —זכי Talk • Contributions • Edit counter 16:14, 1 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Ad Zacheus 3: you did not answered the question if your witnesses can proove your claims. I have changed emails with them. They do not remember anything you says. See e.g. OTRS Nr. 2007080110010745, -jkb- (cs.source) 17:24, 1 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't know. I did not try to influence them secretly as you did. I wait if the ArbCom decides whether their testimonials are necessary and they will be asked by arbitrators, not by me.


 * I don't have access to OTRS. Even if I do, I would have to keep information from it in private.


 * It is not my problem if your witnesses cannot remember what you have said. It was expressis verbis as follows: You said, "I deserve my own Wikipedia article". It means you confirmed that you are a public person, otherwise you would be non notable. —זכי Talk • Contributions • Edit counter 15:22, 2 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Ad Zacheus 4: sorry, you do not answer my very important question. I do not mind your personal and devious views. I asked you to give here – not for me but for the arbitration comittee - alink to somewhat what  can provide it. You did not. More over, After your unsufficient answer, I demand that you proove your claiming that I was a member or a staff member of a "trotskyist exile magazine", and, this is very important, give please a link to a source which has been issued before you accused me to be there. And thirdly, please give here a source that the "trotskyist exile magazine" was a known or important or whatever paper – as far as I know, there were distributed some 300 to 500 pieses of it in Czechoslovakia. So: three question, and I am expecting three concrete answers, otherwise I must claim that you are not only a liar but a very dangerous manipulator. Thank you for your prettyfull convenience. -jkb-  (cs.source) 17:26, 1 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The evidence that you was an editor of a trotskyist exile magazine: Bylo nás pět.


 * 300 to 500 pieces – it was the normal circulation of exile magazines.


 * Now, when I replied to questions, it is up to you to confirm me that I am not neither a liar and neither a manipulator. —זכי Talk • Contributions • Edit counter 15:34, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

=Proposed final decision=

Disclosure of personal information
1) It is a violation of civility to disclose personal information regarding any other user, see also No personal attacks.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Fred Bauder 19:45, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * Comment by -jkb-: accepted, sure, -jkb- (cs.source) 18:16, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Civility
1a) Editors are expected to be reasonably civil and courteous to one another. See Civility and No personal attacks.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Comment by -jkb-: accepted and support, -jkb- (cs.source) 18:17, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed. Newyorkbrad 19:49, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia Is Not a Forum for Disputes from Elsewhere
2) The primary purpose of Wikipedia is to write an encyclopedia. Importing disputes from other venues into the English Wikipedia, including from real life or from other Wikimedia projects, is extremely disruptive.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed. Newyorkbrad 19:49, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Support. —זכי Talk • Contributions • Edit counter 06:40, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Personal identifying information
3) Editors may choose whether to disclose their real-world identities on Wikipedia or to edit anonymously. For a variety of reasons, a majority of Wikipedians edit anonymously. It is believed the opportunity to edit anonymously increases participation.
 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Comment by -jkb-: support, -jkb- (cs.source) 17:59, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed; adapted from Requests for arbitration/MONGO. Newyorkbrad 19:49, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Disclosure of personal identifying information
4) When an editor has chosen to edit Wikipedia anonymously, other users must not disclose the editor's real name or personal identifying information on-wiki, even if the information has been revealed in another online project or forum.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Comment by -jkb-: sure, support. -jkb- (cs.source) 17:58, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed. (This may be slightly too strong, as I can imagine some very narrow exceptions to the principle.) Newyorkbrad 19:49, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Notable persons who are Wikipedia editors
5) Where a person is notable in his or her own right, legitimate discussion of that person in appropriate articles is not restricted because that person happens to edit Wikipedia. In borderline situations, good judgment must be used in determining, for example, whether to refer to such a person as an example of a phenomenon rather than referring to a different individual.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed. I think this addresses some of the disputed instances of alleged disclosure of personal information. Newyorkbrad 14:19, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Who may edit
6) Editing of Wikipedia is open to anyone who conforms to our policies. Applied to the instant case, that includes all shades of political opinion and is not based on the role they played in communist Czechoslovakia. There is no second class status on Wikipedia for those who supported or collaborated with the regime.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Proposed Fred Bauder 17:36, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * Support. The Wikipedia is no place for better and second-class Wikipedians. —Zacheus Talk • Contributions • Edit counter 06:35, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * This is in principle ok, but I do afraid - just like cs:che or Newyorkbrad - that this principle could have come negative sides. Sure, the Czechs can do something else, but I don't know why this could do something with my person. I live since 40 years in West Germany i.e. European Union, so I do not know why a user who obviously cannot follow the principles of the history and the principles of Wikipedia should have a possibility to judge in this way over somebody. Fred Bauder, I think I have understood what you mean, therefore I tried to formulate a new principle - see bellow, thx. -jkb- (cs.source) 17:37, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:
 * I don't quite see how is this principle relevant to the case. As far as I'm familiar with the issue it doen't look like it's about people being oppressed on Wikipedia because they collaborated with a criminal regime, but rather (in part) about accusing them of the collaboration. Wouldn't accepting such principle say something like "Yeah, it's quite possible that -jkb- did really collaborate with the Communists, but that doesn't matter on Wikipedia"? --cs:che 00:07, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * For some of the same reasons as cs:che, I would prefer that this type of wording be avoided. Newyorkbrad 00:10, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Sweeping it under the rug doesn't change the situation. The idea seems to be that this is mud that ought to stick. It needs to be plainly said that throwing the mud in the first place is unacceptable. The Czechs can make different rules if they want. And yes, it is saying ""Yeah, it's quite possible that (pick any editor) did really collaborate with the Communists, but that doesn't matter on Wikipedia" Fred Bauder 10:02, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree. —Zacheus Talk • Contributions • Edit counter 12:11, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Users who edit here
7) Editing of Wikipedia is open to anyone who conforms to our policies. We do not distinguish between political, religious or other conviction or opinion nor we ask what this or that person did years before in this or that country. To make a statement on this is the exclusively privilege of each user. But it is a violence of the fundamental rights here, if a user accuses another user off being member or supporter of this or that system, political or religious opinion etc. (you can improve my english formulations, thx)

Proposed by -jkb-, -jkb- (cs.source) 17:37, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Reject. Non-understandable and strange English. No practical difference to 6, but partially in discrepancy to 5. Repeating of what an Wikipedian has already published about him- or herself, it is not prohibitted. —Zacheus Talk • Contributions • Edit counter 11:14, 13 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Exporting of the drama
8) Not only importing drama into en: is prohibitted, but exporting drama from en: to other projects, such as de: or the Wikisource, is prohibitted and bannable offence.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed by —זכי Talk • Contributions • Edit counter 08:11, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * see my comment in Requests for arbitration/Zacheus-jkb/Evidence, -jkb- (cs.source) 17:37, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Links to involved user accounts
9) Links to user accounts (here in en.wikipedia or in other projects) or links to arbitration and similar pages, where such user account is involved, is not a disclosure of privacy or private informations, if only the user account is named, not the person owing this acount.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed by -jkb- (cs.source) 17:37, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Strongly disagree, especially in cases where the user uses in one project a real name and in the other the pseudonym. In such cases links to the real name account is harassment, the same way as -jkb- does. It is the intentional breach of Wikipedia Is Not a Forum for Disputes from Elsewhere. —זכי Talk • Contributions • Edit counter 06:39, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Disputes between -jkb- and Zacheus in other forums
1) and  (formerly ) have been involved in a complex series of disputes that originated on the Czech Wikipedia and have expanded to Meta Wiki. In the fall of 2006, the dispute spread to the English Wikipedia. Both editors behaved inappropriately by conduct such as importing external disputes into the English Wikipedia, making serious personal attacks on each other, and/or revealing personal identifying information about each other.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * IMHO, I never committed any personal attack on -jkb- on en:. I had never revealed personal identifying information about -jkb- on en: before he did it by himself. That's why I ask for erasing that statement. —Zacheus Talk • Contributions • Edit counter 14:59, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment by -jkb-: firstly, I feel - when working here - to be a member of a whole project, and therefore I was editing in approx 15 domains here; and if somebody attack me on enwiki or meta, I do not see any difference, see also a steward's anwer on my question ; in last time Zacheus did slow down in attacking me directly, but he was looking for disputes on pages like Talk:Anna Halman, Talk:2006 Gdansk school suicide incident, User talk:Jimbo Wales etc., where he simply attacked my edits etc.; secondly, if you compare the contributions of me and Zacheus, you will find that I only reacted on his accusations or claims, without importing something from other domains; the sentence "I never committed any personal attack on -jkb- on en" is a nonsence - see evidence. Also my edits in Meta or sk.wiki were just reactions on attacks made by Zacheus. -jkb- (cs.source) 17:55, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Zacheus' reaction
 * Please, could someone explain to -jkb- that the ArbCom has jurisdiction only over the en: and that it is a bad thing to import here his problems from another projects, such as his copyvios etc.?
 * he was looking for disputes on pages like Talk:Anna Halman, Talk:2006 Gdansk school suicide incident, User talk:Jimbo Wales etc., where he simply attacked my edits etc. A plain lie. I edited 2006 Gdansk school suicide incident before -jkb- (15:23, 25 May 2007 x 11:56, 28 May 2007). Actually, -jkb- wikistalked me and he has even impudence to accuse me from his own behaviour (which he repeated even on sk:).
 * if you compare the contributions of me and Zacheus, you will find that I only reacted on his accusations or claims, without importing something from other domains A plain lie. He repeatedly accused me being a vandal and that's why I had to be checked many times. He even did not stop repeating his lie after my checking.
 * the sentence "I never committed any personal attack on -jkb- on en" is a nonsense It is not. -jkb- provided no evidence for his claim.
 * Also my edits in Meta or s.wiki were just reactions on attacks made by Zacheus. No, it was the wikistalking. I never wrote about -jkb- there before he came to wikistalk me. —Zacheus Talk • Contributions • Edit counter 06:52, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed. See detailed summary of the background by an uninvolved administrator, whose accuracy neither party has challenged. Newyorkbrad 19:49, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Reworded slightly so the committee does not have to unnecessarily wade through stale diffs to determine that each type of conduct occurred by each editor, where it is the overall pattern that matters here. Newyorkbrad 14:22, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Current behavior
2) In recent months, Zacheus appears to have discontinued the problematic behavior described above, while -jkb- has stated in his evidence that he is not currently editing English Wikipedia.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * This is totally unbased. I imported external disputes into the English Wikipedia only once, in December 2006 (but it had nothing to do with -jkb-) and never repeated that: "I asked Zacheus to delete his user page and to stop bringing the cs drama to en [26] and he did so . . . There is nothing in Zacheus' en.wiki contributions (after December 2006) to indicate that he is harassing or threatening to expose -jkb- or that he is in any way a disruptive editor. I do not know whether Zacheus is involved in the publication of a photo of -jkb- as alleged, but if so, it occured off-wiki and involved multiple editors. Based only on en.wiki contributions, -jkb- is the one who won't let this long-simmering dispute rest, although there may be more going on beneath the surface or on other language wikipedias. Thatcher131 16:08, 12 June 2007 (UTC)" -jkb- still edits en:, although he claims the opposite. —Zacheus Talk • Contributions • Edit counter 15:07, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment by -jkb-: the nonsence that I edit en.wiki although I promised not to edit - this is a complete nonsence: I answer to the questions of the arbitration committee. May I??? -jkb- (cs.source) 17:36, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


 * What is the meaning of the words page not in use on your talk page then? —Zacheus Talk • Contributions • Edit counter 06:55, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * You did, twice: "I do not edit on this domain anymore you can use my talk page here, I will check it (otherwise, see s:cs:User:-jkb- or de:User:-jkb-). Thx, -jkb- (cs.source) 13:41, 4 July 2007 (UTC)" + "Má aktivita na projektech Wikimedie končí, sklony k sado macho nemám. -jkb- (cs.source) 11:06, 26. 6. 2007 (UTC)" = You indirectly claim that proposals and decisions of the ArbCom are sadistic. —Zacheus Talk • Contributions • Edit counter 14:22, 13 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed. Newyorkbrad 19:49, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I've posed questions to the parties, above, to see if there is any disagreement with this. Newyorkbrad 14:24, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:
 * Zacheus, I said that you have "discontinued" the problematic behavior, meaning that you had stopped it&mdash;this was meant as a favorable finding for you. Newyorkbrad 16:50, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I see. Sorry for that. —Zacheus Talk • Contributions • Edit counter 06:57, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Template
3) {text of proposed finding of fact}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
4) {text of proposed finding of fact}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
5) {text of proposed finding of fact}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
6) {text of proposed finding of fact}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
7) {text of proposed finding of fact}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
8) {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.

Parties admonished
1) -jkb- and Zacheus are admonished for their behavior in this matter and are directed to refrain from: (A) Importing outside disputes, including disputes from other Wikimedia projects, into the English Wikipedia; (B) Disclosing on-wiki the real names of or other personal identifying information about each other or about any other editor; and (C) Making personal attacks or uncivil remarks toward each other or toward any other editor.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Acceptable Fred Bauder 17:38, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * Comment by -jkb-: acceptable, when I can can interprete this in the way that I have the right to defend myself when somebody else attack me on enwiki; other points (B and C) accepted without rematks, -jkb- (cs.source) 18:14, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment by Zacheus: I accept it without reservation, even A. —Zacheus Talk • Contributions • Edit counter 06:59, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed. Hopefully this admonition is not actually necessary as the dispute seems to have died down, but the committee presumably accepted this case with a view toward levying some sort of a remedy to avoid any recurrence. Newyorkbrad 19:49, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Template
2) {text of proposed remedy}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
3) {text of proposed remedy}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
4) {text of proposed remedy}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
5) {text of proposed remedy}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
6) {text of proposed remedy}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
7) {text of proposed remedy}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
8) {text of proposed remedy}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
9) {text of proposed remedy}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Enforcement by block
1) Should -jkb- or Zacheus, editing under any account name or IP, violate the admonition contained in this decision, he may be blocked for an appropriate period of time by any uninvolved administrator. All blocks to be logged at Requests for arbitration/Zacheus-jkb.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed. Newyorkbrad 19:49, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Template
2) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
3) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
4) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
5) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

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

Template

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

General discussion

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others: