Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2/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—the same format as is used in Arbitration Committee decisions. The bottom of the page may be used for overall analysis of the /Evidence and for general discussion of the case.

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

Motions and requests by the parties

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:

Proposed temporary injunctions

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

3)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

4)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed final decision

Proposed principles

Edit warring considered harmful

1) Edit warring is harmful. When disagreements arise, users are expected to discuss their differences rationally rather than reverting ad infinitum. The three-revert rule should not be construed as an entitlement or inalienable right to three reverts, nor does it endorse reverts as an editing technique.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. Mackensen (talk) 01:13, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Consensus

2) Wikipedia works by building consensus through the use of polite discussion. The dispute resolution process is designed to assist consensus-building when normal talk page communication has not worked. Sustained edit-warring is not an appropriate method of resolving disputes, and is wasteful of resources and destructive to morale.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. Mackensen (talk) 01:13, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Wikipedia is not a battleground

3) Wikipedia is a reference work. Use of the site for political struggle accompanied by harassment of opponents is extremely disruptive and absolutely unacceptable.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. Adapted from previous arbitration. Mackensen (talk) 01:41, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

This fact is essential to this case. -- tariqabjotu 14:14, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes. SalaSkan 01:06, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Disruptive editing

4) Users who engage in disruptive editing may be banned from the site.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. Adapted from previous arbitration. Mackensen (talk) 01:41, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Courtesy

5) Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably and calmly in their dealings with other users. Insulting and intimidating other users harms the community by creating a hostile environment. Personal attacks are not acceptable.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. Adapted from previous arbitration. Mackensen (talk) 01:53, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

It is when there is underlying conflict that courtesy becomes most important. Conflict is not an excuse to dump on the other editor, but a reason to make an extra effort to courteously listen. Fred Bauder 20:08, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Increasing sanctions

6) In cases where moderate sanctions have failed to stop an editor's disruptive behavior, more extreme ones may be imposed. 6.1) In cases where moderate sanctions have failed to stop an editor's disruptive behavior, more severe ones may be imposed.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Possibly obvious, but may be useful to make this explicit. Kirill 17:55, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed 6.1, slightly better wording. SalaSkan 01:09, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Assume good faith

7) Users are encouraged to assume good faith in their dealings with other editors. Additionally, users should always act in good faith.

7.1) Users are encouraged to assume good faith in their dealings with other editors, especially when they had conflicts with them in the past. Additionally, users should always act in good faith.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. -- tariqabjotu 16:18, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Proposed 6.1, this seems to be necessary. Some people here seem to think that assuming bad faith when you have a conflict with someone. SalaSkan 01:11, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedia sockpuppeteers

8) Category:Wikipedia sockpuppeteers, if it should exist at all, or has any legitimate uses, is not a label that is appropriately placed by one user on another user they are conflict with.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 15:17, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Hope you don't mind that I changed it to "Wikipedia sockpuppeteers" as that was the actual category placed on Atabek's userpage[1]. SalaSkan 01:13, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Agreed. It was an unnecessary provocation, and led to a lot of trouble for nothing, like I stated at the RfC. SalaSkan 00:48, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Diplomacy

9) It is when there are serious disagreements that courteous negotiation is most necessary.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 15:17, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Neutral Sources

10) Reference to Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and other human rights organizations' sources are neutral and can be used in Wikipedia articles.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed.--Dacy69 21:11, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Who claims they aren't? SalaSkan 01:06, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

user:Hajji Piruz, user:AlexanderPar and some others who are part of this Arbcom. See please my section of the evidence page.--Dacy69 02:42, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Advocacy

11) Wikipedia is not an appropriate forum for advocacy, see Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a soapbox.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed - Fedayee 02:38, 20 July 2007 (UTC)­­

Comment by others:

Reliability of sources

12) Determining the reliability of sources is a matter of sound editorial judgment informed by expertise.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed - Fedayee 02:38, 20 July 2007 (UTC)­­

Comment by others:

Requests for comment

13) A user-conduct request for comment represents a forum in which editors may raise concerns about the conduct of a fellow editor. Although this procedure can be misused, when utilized in good faith it presents an editor with the opportunity to learn that concerns exist about his or her behavior, respond to the concerns, and if appropriate adjust his or her behavior.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed - Fedayee 02:38, 20 July 2007 (UTC)­­

Comment by others:

Verifiability

14) Significant verifiable information from a reliable source can generally be included in an article, per Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Reliable sources.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed, and I want to put the emphases on significant. - Fedayee 02:38, 20 July 2007 (UTC)­­

Comment by others:

Provocation

15) When another user is having trouble due to editing conflicts or a dispute with another user it is inappropriate to provoke them as it is predictable that the situation will escalate. Provocation of a new or inexperienced user by an experienced and sophisticated user is especially inappropriate.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed - Fedayee 05:22, 20 July 2007 (UTC)­­

Comment by others:

Sockpuppet abuse

16) The use of sockpuppet accounts, while not generally forbidden, is discouraged. Abuse of sockpuppet accounts, such as using them to evade blocks and bans, make personal attacks or reverts, or vandalize, is strictly forbidden.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed; this one concerns user:Artaxiad and user:AdilBaguirov - Fedayee 05:22, 20 July 2007 (UTC)­­

Comment by others:

One user or several?

17) For the purpose of dispute resolution when there is uncertainty whether a party is one user with sockpuppets or several users with similar editing habits they may be treated as one user with sockpuppets.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed; this one concerns user:Artaxiad and user:AdilBaguirov - Fedayee 05:22, 20 July 2007 (UTC)­­

Comment by others:

Users national background and neutrality

18) Editors with a national background are encouraged to edit from a Neutral Point of View, presenting the point of view they have knowledge of through their experience and culture without aggressively pushing their particular nationalist point of view by emphasizing it or minimizing or excluding other points of view.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. ­­- Fedayee 05:22, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Dacy69 violated parole

1) Dacy69 (talk · contribs) was limited to one revert per week as a result of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan. He was blocked twice for three-revert rule violations, the first time for 24 hours and the second for 72 hours.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. Mackensen (talk) 01:17, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Atabek violated parole

2) Atabek (talk · contribs) was limited to one revert per week as a result of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan. He was blocked for 48 hours for violating this parole at Yeprem Khan.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. Mackensen (talk) 01:23, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Also, please note, right before Atabek's first edit, the page consisted of a short OR material without any sources or citations [2]. After Atabek's first round of edits [3], the page had 7 book and article references. The edit which followed Atabek's in 3 minutes [4] was the first ever on the page by Hajji Piruz/Azerbaijani after which other users including AlexanderPar, Naharar, and Houshyar engaged in an edit war.Atabek 00:35, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Hajji Piruz/Azerbaijani violated parole

3) User:Hajji Piruz/User:Azerbaijani has been placed under a revert parole by the previous ArbCom decision on April 11th [5]. As the block log of User:Azerbaijani shows [6], User:Hajji Piruz/User:Azerbaijani was blocked for 31 hours for parole violation at Nakhichevan [7].

Comment by Arbitrators:

The block came five days after the last revert, unless I'm misreading something. Who requested the block? Mackensen (talk) 00:35, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the block was made a few days later, but that’s the way Arbitration enforcement board works. Admins are very slow to respond there. Hajji Piruz was blocked for reverting and not commenting on talk of the respective article, which is why some other people were blocked as well. As you know, the parole requires that users should provide rationale for their rv on talk of the respective article. See the terms of his parole: He is limited to one revert per page per week, excepting obvious vandalism. Further, he is required to discuss any content reversions on the page's talk page. [8] Since Hajji Piruz reverted the article without discussion on talk, it is a violation of his parole. I reported him here: [9], because I did not think it was acceptable that he reverted the article referring to a discussion with another user somewhere else, while not discussing his revert with other involved parties on the article’s talk page. --Grandmaster 04:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I never made a revert, I made three edits to the Nakchivan article, and none of them were reverts. I have shown you all the diff's with regards to that page, I never made a revert (here ar the diff's, no revert was ever made: [10], [11] (after a talk with Ali), and [12]) Because I did not make a revert, I was not obligated to discuss on the talk page of the article, instead I discussed on user talk pages.Hajji Piruz 16:15, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

This was a revert: [13] You replaced "South Caucasus" with "Arran". --Grandmaster 17:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Atabek 23:45, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

This block was done hastily without a detailed look into the actual edits I made. Here are the diff's for which I got blocked: [14], [15] (after a talk with Ali), and [16]. As you can see, I never broke my parole, and I merely added the information as the source had put it. I never even made a single revert, and I discussed my edits. This block was surely by mistake, as no where did I ever break any part of my parole.Hajji Piruz 02:27, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

You left no comment on talk after you reverted, which is also a parole violation. If parole violation is proposed as finding of fact for other users, this should apply to Hajji Piruz as well. --Grandmaster 06:12, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes I did, I had an entire conversation with Ali, in which we came to an agreement (here is part of the conversatoin on Ali's talk page: [17]). In my edit summary, I clearly said "see talk between Ali and I (on our talk pages, we decided to put it the way Iranica has it "...parts of" [18]. Besides, I never made a revert to begin with. This block was completely done by mistake (I assume), my appeals for a fix to this incorrect block also went ignored for some reason at the time.

Also, I think you commented on the wrong section, I think this belongs in the involved parties section.Hajji Piruz 06:21, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

If you had been blocked by mistake, the admins would have lifted the block, but that did not happen. Your block is recorded at the block log for the previous arbcom case. Grandmaster 06:40, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I never made a revert, I went the path of discussing my edit rather than revert warring, etc... What did I do wrong? This block was obviously a mistake that was never corrected.Hajji Piruz 15:01, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Hajji Piruz/Azerbaijani violated WP:LEGAL

4) According to WP:LEGAL, legal threats are a form of harassment and "users who make legal threats will typically be blocked from editing indefinitely". On June 7th, User:Hajji Piruz/User:Azerbaijani made the following comment [19]:

• "Note that in the real world, what Atabek did is a serious offense and could have ended up with a lawsuit, so I do not want users reading this taking this lightly"

Comment by Arbitrators:

I don't see that this rises to the level of a legal threat. Mackensen (talk) 17:38, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I wish we could establish a principle laying down what isn't a legal threat. Suggesting something is illegal is not a threat. Suggesting one is going to do something (legal) about it is. "That's illegal" is not a threat. "That's illegal and I'm going to sue you" is. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 14:40, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Atabek 23:55, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Not a threat, I was just showing the seriousness of slandering some else's name. I dont know your real name, where your form, etc... its impossible for me to sue you, so how could that possible have been a threat?Hajji Piruz 02:28, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Calling this a legal threat is an exaggeration. -- tariqabjotu 16:15, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Obviously, this is stupid. SalaSkan 00:47, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Hajji Piruz/Azerbaijani violated WP:STALK

5) According to [20], Wikistalking is the form of stalking disruption whereby the violator follows "an editor to another article to continue disruption":

• On Yeprem Khan, Hajji Piruz/Azerbaijani first ever edit [21] was 3 minutes after User:Atabek's edit [22]. And his edit was to remove sourced text [23].
• On Caucasus Campaign, Hajji Piruz/Azerbaijani had one WP:OR edit on May 8th, and the next one [24] was 6 hours after User:Atabek's edit on June 13th [25].
• On Qajar dynasty, Hajji Piruz/Azerbaijani edited the page [26] only once on December 31st, 2006. His next edit and further revert warring was on June 20th, 2007 [27] about 5.5 hours after the edit by User:Atabek. His next step on the same page was a bad faith blind revert [28] immediately after my edit, followed by reverting himself [29]. On this same page, User:Houshyar joins User:Hajji Piruz with blind reverting [30].
• On Aryan page, which User:Hajji Piruz never ever edited before, his first only edit [31], although in good faith content-wise, appears 59 minutes after User:Atabek's edit.
• On User_talk:Francis Tyers, User:Hajji Piruz responded [32], again disputing in bad faith Atabek's posting few hours after my request to User:Francis Tyers. This is a very vivid case of Wikistalking, as it's following Atabek's edit to another user's talk page without any prior notification made to him about the posting. And pay attention to the form of disruptive comment [33]:

* "Atabek, you already brought your case on WP:ANI and they rejected it, so why have you come to Francis now?"

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Atabek 00:03, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Ridiculous, all of these articles were on my watchlist. You cannot assume that just because I never edited them that I never watchlisted them. I have lots of articles on my watchlist that I have never edited before. When I find an article that interests me or is in the field that I'm interested in, I watchlist it, and as usually happens when you have lots of articles watchlisted, you forget about them and they pop up to the top when another editor edits them. This is an assumption of bad faith. All of these article wre on my watchlist, just look at them, they are all an integral part of Iranian history, a field that I am interested in, ofcourse they were on my watchlist.Hajji Piruz 02:29, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Atabek has threatened Wiki-retaliation

6) Atabek has threatened to disrupt Wikipedia in violation of WP:Point.

1. "Then we should prepare a collage picture of Adolf Hitler with Swastika and images of Holocaust and post it on all Iran related pages"[34]
2. "I am working on Pan-Aryan collage meanwhile. Thanks."[35]

Comment by Arbitrators:

The full text of the first remark suggests sarcasm and frustration. Was such a collage actually created? Mackensen (talk) 00:21, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

He said he was working on one, I'm not sure if he actually was or if he was trying to intimidate others in some way. But regardless, he still made the threat of disrupting Wikipedia, so whether it was sarcasm or not is up for debate.Hajji Piruz 16:19, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

For the record, such collage has never been created. --Grandmaster 04:50, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Proposed.Hajji Piruz 02:54, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Atabek has violated WP:NPA

7) According to WP:NPA "Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia."

Atabek has made comments ranging from the ethincity of users to users being bigoted: #1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #6, #7, #8, #9, #10, and #11

Comment by Arbitrators:

I've given these quotations their own numbers for simplicity. Most of this is source criticism. About the worst thing I see is in #3, where Atabek says of Hajji Piruz, "Actually, you're no authority (neither admin nor mediator) to make or not make something sure about users treating each other. But anyways, good luck with ambitions, I shall simply ignore you, since you just don't understand much.". Mackensen (talk) 00:31, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

How about these, calling User:Alborz Fallah a "pseudo-Azeri": Apparently, there are too many pseudo-Azeris claiming the Azeri identity yet not quite resembling (in cultural and linguistic sense) the modern definition of Azerbaijani. Throwing the words like "yashasin" or "chox saghol" or "yaxshi" does not yet suffice to be called "Azeri".[36] or what about when he calls VartanM's position bigotted: And it's very sad that some cannot move beyond bigotted positions to recognize the facts or gain some credibility in their stance.Hajji Piruz 16:23, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Where does my post include the personality of User:Alborz Fallah or User:VartanM? I don't see how "too many pseudo-Azeris" or "some" would in any way relate to any particular contributor. The post was actually about some Kaveh Farrokh, who is not even a contributor. This is again a frivolous evidence and yet another assumption of bad faith against myself. Atabek 07:46, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Proposed.Hajji Piruz 03:16, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Atabek chose to ignore rather than discuss

8) Atabek has made comments expressing his desire to ignore users rather than discuss the issues: [37], [38], [39], [40], and [41]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed.Hajji Piruz 03:21, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I would think that when you edit my user page, attack me personally, intimidate me, refuse to assume good faith with regards to myself, accuse me of canvassing for asking administrator's attention, the only remaining solution would be just ignorance. Atabek 07:50, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I never attacked you (if I have personally attacked you, then show the diffs, you keep making this accusation yet no diffs you show support this claim), I never intimidated you (again, show the diffs), you have also failed to assume good faith, etc... The difference is that I wanted to resolve these issues by talking about it, you just wanted to ignore me, and told other users to ignore me. You even called my comments which were attempting to address some of the issues between you and I "garbage": [42].

I actually tried to discuss things out, but you simply wanted to ignore me and continue the dispute, making more false accusations, further revert warring, further canvassing, etc...until we got to this point where we had no other choice then the take this to arbcom unfortunately.Hajji Piruz 19:02, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Atabek has canvassed

9) Gaming the system canvassing, which states "Canvassing (also known as "internal spamming" and "cross-posting") is overtly soliciting the opinions of other Wikipedians on their talk pages, and it is controversial. However, it is agreed that disruptive canvassing, even if it seems to be within guidelines below, is never acceptable."

• User:Thatcher131, User:Tariqabjotu, User:Dmcdevit, User:Bobak, and Administrators noticeboard Has canvassed for RFC: Dacy69 and Grandmaster Has canvassed prior to the arbcom: Newyorkbrad, Picaroon9288, Wikipedia:Help desk, and Admin's noticeboard Checkusers: [43], [44], [45], [46], [47], [48], and [49]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed.Hajji Piruz 02:53, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:HARASSMENT states: "Any sort of content which truly needs to be displayed, or removed, should be immediately brought to the attention of admins rather than edit warring to enforce your views on the content of someone else's user space.". You should have contacted admins if you had concerns about my user space. Similarly, I have a right to contact admins, to ask questions or otherwise address disruptive editing of my user space. I don't see why asking the opinion of administrators would constitute a violation. Atabek 06:27, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Going from admin to admin, noticeboard to noticeboard, check user to check user, until you find someone sympathetic to you or find someone to carry out your demand is canvassing and is not a good thing to be doing. For example, just recently you had made a case regarding the Safavids [50] which was rejected, with User:Black Falcon clearly saying that the issue required no administrator intervention, and then once that was rejected you went to another admin with the same issue [51] in order to see if that person would support you...thats called canvassing.Hajji Piruz 19:08, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I am not looking for someone sympathetic to myself but seeking assistance to address the administrative issue, which I believe was not addressed. It's my right to do so as a contributor. I didn't ask User:Francis Tyers to make edits specifically in my favor, I only reported my view of the issue and asked for mediation. Assume good faith. Atabek 00:24, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Thats exactly what canvassing is and you just admitted. You did not get the outcome you wanted on the administrators noticeboard, by your own admission, so you went to another admin about the issue. Thats canvassing.Hajji Piruz 17:15, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Also known as 'forum shopping'. SalaSkan 00:52, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think seeking admin's advice is canvassing. Grandmaster 05:10, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

No comment on any other aspect, but I believe the comment that was left on my talkpage was a legitimate communication following on a clerk note I had made about the scope of the arbitration case. Seeking procedural advice about the arbitration process is not sanctionable. Newyorkbrad 16:09, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Dacy69 has violated WP:NPA

10) According to WP:NPA "Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia."

Dacy69 has made comments ranging from implying other users are not smart to telling them that they are indecent: [52], [53], [54], and [55]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed.Hajji Piruz 03:33, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Also request Arbcom members check all and whole diffs. If it is really personal attacks then I should really apologize. I don't know what about those who even used curse language. Yes, I called one comment indecent when it was made by user involved in a dispute but placed his comment as a third party during RfC.--Dacy69 18:43, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Dacy69 has threatened Wiki-retaliation

11) Dacy69 has threatened to disrupt Wikipedia in violation of WP:Point.

[56], [57], [58], and [59]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed.Hajji Piruz 03:41, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

I did not want to comment on this accusation as well on that made above or below. I hope Arbcom members will have time to check diffs and what I told. I has offered to reach NPOV and for that reason suggested not used both pro-Azeri or pro-Iranian sources, images, etc. But user:Hajji Piruz opted another way. Check one of my comment: "Information might be relevant for several article. On how many articles you have argued about the name of Azerbaijan? Well, as a compromise we can put some short sentence to cartoon event. But we should leave information about aftermath repression". Is this any kind of retaliation? user:Hajji Piruz evidence is more than frivolous --Dacy69 18:37, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I see no threats at all. And by the way, "threats" of violating WP:POINT aren't exactly WP:POINT violations. SalaSkan 00:59, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Dacy69 has canvassed

12) Gaming the system canvassing, which states states "Canvassing (also known as "internal spamming" and "cross-posting") is overtly soliciting the opinions of other Wikipedians on their talk pages, and it is controversial. However, it is agreed that disruptive canvassing, even if it seems to be within guidelines below, is never acceptable."

• Newyorkbrad, Tariqabjotu, Alex Bakharev, and Alex Bakharev again Has canvassed for his image: Spike Wilbury, Francis Tyers, and Quadell

Comment by Arbitrators:

Four posts weeks apart doesn't seem like canvassing. Mackensen (talk) 17:39, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Thats four posts, all saying the same thing, and all to admins, in less than a 20 day period.Hajji Piruz 17:49, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:CANVASS states: "It is sometimes acceptable to contact a limited group of editors with regard to a specific issue as long as it does not become disruptive.". I don't see how Dacy69 was disruptive with legitimate posts on users' talk page weeks apart. Atabek 12:31, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Proposed.Hajji Piruz 03:30, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Grandmaster has violated his parole

13) Grandmaster (talk · contribs) was limited to one revert per week as a result of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan. He was blocked for 24 hours for violating this parole at Azerbaijan (Iran). See this: [60]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Grandmaster has a valid point. Mackensen (talk) 10:53, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Proposed.Hajji Piruz 15:03, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

That is not violation of parole. This block was made on 4 April, and the parole became effective on 11 April 2007. Everyone can check the decision on my and other users’ parole and see that it was passed on 11 April 2007. [61] This is a block for violation of the temporary injunction (which, btw, I did not formally violate, Dmcdevit blocked me for reverting the same edit by a certain user on a number of articles), and Hajji Pirruz was blocked for violation of his injunction on the same article by the same admin one day before my block: [62]. However, I never violated my parole, i.e. I have no history of being blocked after 11 April 2007, and all violations prior to that date were dealt with during the previous arbcom case. This proposal is misleading and factually inaccurate. --Grandmaster 05:03, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

This finding appears to be frivolous. --Ghirla^-трёп- 12:03, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

TigranTheGreat disruptive editing

• In [63], User:TigranTheGreat claims that Khojaly Massacre, which was documented by the New York Times, Agence France Presse, Associated Press, Washington Post, and the video [64] of massacre, among many available on YouTube, is "fictional". The contributor clearly engages in disruptive insults directed against Azeris:

• These two points, coupled with the draft's contradiction with Azeri claims, would further suggest that the imaginary "Khojali Massacre" was more of a fiction than reality .

• Another quote [65]:

• rephrasing the deleted info. Its quote relevant to he motivations behind the declaration on the fictional "massacre."

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Atabek 06:07, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Hajji Piruz violated WP:HARASSMENT

1) WP:HARASSMENT states:

• placing 'suspected sockpuppet' and similar tags on the user page of active contributors, and otherwise trying to display material the user may find annoying or embarrassing in their user space is a common form of harassment.

User:Hajji Piruz edited User:Atabek's user page [66], without consulting him, with an attempt to intimidate and provoke a conflict as also noted by a 3rd party [67]. Further attempts of User:Atabek to bring the issue to administrators' attention, resulted in attacks, accusations of canvassing, RfC and ArbCom intimidation by User:Hajji Piruz. The bad faith of User:Hajji Piruz is demonstrated in his own words [68]:

• Tariq, you should also know that Atabek was initially supposed to be blocked for a period of 1 year according to the arbcom, but for some reason the administrators changed their mind at the last minute (I think because of lobbying by another user involved in the Arbcom on Atabek's side)

2) [69] - yet another harassment of user's identity and background, made in bad faith and along national lines, on this very page.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Atabek 06:17, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree that this was a clear harassment. I don’t see why anyone in good faith would make such edits to the userpage of another user, considering that Hajji Piruz is not an admin and has no authority for making such edits. --Grandmaster 14:31, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Untrue, please refer to User:Tariqabjotu's comments on this issue (he says my edit on Atabek's page was nothing of the sort): [70] Furthermore, Category:Wikipedia sockpuppeteers states: This category shows users which have been found to have created multiple accounts, or sockpuppets, to abuse Wikipedia policies, or are strongly suspected to have done so. User:Tengri is a confirmed sockpuppet of Atabek. Also, I never canvassed, it was Atabek who canvassed and I merely defended myself on the page he was canvassing on. This is and assumption of bad faith by Atabek and frivolous evidence.Hajji Piruz 16:13, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

FYI, User:Tariqabjotu's evidence [71] presents a section on frivolous evidence by User:Hajji Piruz. User:Tengri issue was addressed and closed in previous ArbCom, and User:Hajji Piruz attempts to revive it without evidence are nothing other than WP:HARASSMENT and intimidation.Atabek 18:39, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Where was the Tengri issue resolved? What does Tariqabjotu's evidence have to do with this proposal? How is any of this harrassment?Hajji Piruz 16:06, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

I don't think this is harassment, but the second comment (beginning with Tariq, you should...) is a terrible assumption of bad faith. Atabek was not "supposed to be blocked" for a period of a year. That's like saying an acquitted person was supposed to be found guilty and serve time. The statement, "I think because of lobbying by another user involved in the Arbcom on Atabek's side", is unfounded unless you're suggesting Atabek (or someone else) defended his actions (which is entirely acceptable and expected). -- tariqabjotu 16:09, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

To clear some things up: I said "initially" which completely clears the statement up, I never said he should have been banned. I said he "initially supposed to be blocked." Also, yes, someone else lobbied for Atabek not to get blocked, if I remember correctly, it was Grandmaster.Hajji Piruz 16:18, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Ban was just one of proposals, which did not have support of the arbitrators. It was proposed for a couple of other people too, but arbitrators opted for paroling them as well. If you think that this happened just because of my "lobbying", then I must be a very influential person around here, who can get arbitrators to vote certain way. I wonder if you seriously believe that? Grandmaster 04:38, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Hajji Piruz battling along national lines

While initiating an RfC against myself, after editing my user page, User:Hajji Piruz claims [72]:

• "I'm afraid Atabek is going to get his pals (other users from the Republic of Azerbaijan) to flood the RFC with comments supporting Atabek"

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Atabek 06:17, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I predicted he would and he did (see [73] and [74]), this shows that Atabek was using his nationality and the nationality of others to his advantage, getting his friends to help him by giving him good comments, not me, he went straight away to User:Grandmaster and User:Dacey69. He is trying to turn his own violation of Wikipedia's rules and policies against me...Hajji Piruz 16:17, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

The comment by User:Hajji Piruz was made at 01:41, while as links show, I posted request to comment on RfC to both users 15 minutes earlier, at 01:26. So User:Hajji Piruz was not predicting and yet again, is assuming a bad faith now by providing false information. None of my request comments include any word along national lines, they simply asked for comment on RfC, while User:Hajji Piruz did "sum up" the users falsely claiming them all to be from the Republic of Azerbaijan. Atabek 18:31, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

So you admit that you did ask your pals to come and comment on the RFC. All of them originate in the Republic of Azerbaijan, whether they live there currently I do not know. Dacy69 has admitted that he grew up in Azerbaijan SSR as well as Grandmaster. You went to them for a reason, you have split up Wikipedia along ethnic and national lines.Hajji Piruz 16:08, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Need I say more? More bad faith, harassment and battling along ethnic and national lines from User:Hajji Piruz. Atabek 12:16, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

I agree with this whole-heartedly. The fact that Piruz is still standing by this statement is appalling. -- tariqabjotu 16:01, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with this as well. Comments like the above are frankly unacceptable. SalaSkan 01:07, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Hajji Piruz often fails to assume good faith

17) Per the evidence at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan_2/Workshop#Hajji Piruz often assumes bad faith, divides along ethnic lines, Hajji Piruz (talk · contribs), also known as Azerbaijani (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), often assumes bad faith, thereby thwarting the necessary calm discussion needed to resolve disputes and inflaming tensions between parties. See also User_talk:Tariqabjotu/Archive_Twenty-Nine#Harassment_by_User:Hajji_Piruz_.28formerly_User:Azerbaijani.29, [75], [76], and [77].

Comment by Arbitrators:

He doesn't think it even applies to him, see this Fred Bauder 21:10, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

No, I said that AGF doesnt apply to any of us, not just me or not just him (we've all been in a previous arbcom, Atabek has used a sock in the past User:Tengri, and for more just look at the evidence page), as per what WP:AGF itself says:

This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary. Actions inconsistent with good faith include repeated vandalism, confirmed malicious sockpuppetry, and lying. Assuming good faith also does not mean that no action by editors should be criticized, but instead that criticism should not be attributed to malice unless there is specific evidence of malice. Editors should not accuse the other side in a conflict of not assuming good faith in the absence of reasonable supporting evidence.[78]

Are we or are we not supposed to follow Wikipedia rules as stated? The only reason I did not assume good faith was because of that statement which I posted above in WP:AGF. So if this is not correct, then someone should change that paragraph, otherwise it should be expected that people trying to familiarize themselves with Wikipedia rules and policies, like I did, would read that and abide by it.

I have already acknowledged that I have not assumed good faith and its not something I'm proud of, but the arbitrators must understand that the only reason I did what I did was because I was following Wikipedia's rules and policies as they were stated, if someone else made a mistake during the writing process of WP:AGF, then how would it make it my fault that I simply tried to follow Wikipedia's rules?

That paragraph should be corrected so that other users do not make the same mistake that I made.Hajji Piruz 20:28, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree. It is quite misleading. The time to be courteous and to assume good faith is when there has been trouble. Fred Bauder 21:35, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, so if it is misleading, that it is not my fault that I made such a mistake correct? The fault lies with the wording of the rule, not with the user who simply wanted to follow Wikipedia's policies exactly as they are stated.Hajji Piruz 22:53, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Editing in good faith is a behavior not just institutional policy. Atabek 00:31, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Is that supposed to be some kind of a personal attack, implying that I'm incapable of assuming good faith because its not part of my usual behavior? I'll assume that its not, and hopefully it wasnt. WP:NPA.Hajji Piruz 00:40, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Hajji Piruz, stop WikiLawyering. When you're having trouble with another editor, saying "I'll assume bad faith on your side because the policy says I should" is probably the least effective way of getting the conflict solved. Atabek is not a blatant vandal, and neither are you. Please at least try to work constructively with each other. SalaSkan 00:56, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. -- tariqabjotu 16:23, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Behavior of Atabek

18) Atabek (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) appears, despite occasional crossness, to be editing responsibly and in good faith.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 17:37, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Atabek, note Fred Bauder 16:10, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Given that various users requested an extention to provide their evidence, such propositions are better to be given after everyone have finished providing their evidences. This sort of edit is not done in good faith, when most sources claim it to be Armenian, including Britannica. Systematic replacement of everything Armenian with either "Azeri" or "Caucasian Albanian", and when he cannot do it, providing the majority and fringe positions as equally valid, even for something as simple as food. [79] The last time the decision was taken hashly; given the number of users involved and the scope and the number of articles involved I believe the least that can be done is to wait. This case was first percieved by Armenian users as [user:Azerbaijani] against [user:Atabek], [user:Dacy69] and [user:Grandmaster]. We were only taken by surprise when [user:Grandmaster] and [user:Atabek] took the occasion to involve us all. Since many editors have asked more time, I think proposing an injunction to put the case on hold for 2 weeks would be wise.--TigranTheGreat 20:09, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I was planning on (and will) posting lots of evidence showing Atabek's bad faith. This proposition was made a little too early.Hajji Piruz 22:51, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

As far as I know I added well sourced material at Principality of Khachen. I don't know how adding sourced material is considered a bad faith. If the source says that Khachen was an Albanian principality, then how is it supposed to be a bad faith edit, just because it does not say Armenian. The comment above seems more like POV along ethnic lines again. If there are other legitimate sources, the contributors are welcome to contribute and discuss those on the appropriate page. Those accusing me of being supposedly "anti-Armenian", should also know that I was the one who actually made major contributions to Yeprem Khan article, which had no cited sources before my edit and now has 7 or more. Atabek 07:38, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Discourtesy by Atabek

19) Atabek has been discourteous towards other users and failed to assume good faith [80], [81], and [82].

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 19:50, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Please, note, that in all three cases, the party under discussion was User:Hajji Piruz, who clearly wrote here [83]:

"Your actions in the past have shown that I dont need to AGF in your case (you have used personal attacks, you have edit warred, you have used socks, etc...), so again, this doesnt even apply".

So provided this comment, I was frustrated and recited the opinion of User:Hajji Piruz about not assuming good faith. If it is still considered a discourtesy, I am certainly sorry for that. Atabek 07:32, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

It is when you are having trouble with someone that you need to read what they post and consider their viewpoint carefully, and be courteous. Fred Bauder 14:12, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

It's challenging to review the viewpoint [84], in support of an established sock, where User:Hajji Piruz says:

"I'm not a part of this content dispute, and German-Orientalist soundly proved you wrong. I'm here because you dragged me into this, and now I want to make sure that you dont harrass this new user"

and not to treat such bad faith comment by anything but ignorance or questioning the authority. But still, I agree that I may have been discourteous in response, and I certainly do apologize for that. Atabek 20:27, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

This has been discussed above, the rules on Wikipedia regarding AGF are misleading. [85] Nevertheless, Atabek, contrary to his claim, has assumed bad faith countless times, not even against me, but other users as well, I will post the evidence today if I have time.Hajji Piruz 14:14, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Banned User:Tajik personal attacks, bad faith

20) User:Tajik was banned in an unrelated ArbCom case [86] and caught with several sockpuppets [87] actively evading the ban and revert warring at Safavid dynasty. He recently posted from yet another IP sock, calling Atabek "a snake", "racist", accusing Atabek of "vandalizing" pages and calling his edits "anti-Persian paranoia" [88]. Talk:Safavid dynasty clearly shows that most of the material contributed by Atabek includes sources to conference and journal publications, legitimately encyclopedic material.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Atabek 07:29, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

He's already banned. Why do we need this? Picaroon (Talk) 01:29, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Aivazovsky violated parole

21) User:Aivazovsky has violated the ArbCom 1RR parole over 5 times since the initial ArbCom injunction, and 4 times since the previous ArbCom case was closed [89]. His last violation was at Azerbaijan, for which he was blocked for a week.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Atabek 09:45, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Atabek often fails to assume good faith

22) User:Atabek often fails to assume good faith as per the evidence posted on the evidence page: [90], [91], [92], [93], [94], [95], [96], [97], [98], [99], [100], [101], [102], [103], [104], [105], [106], [107], [108], [109], [110], [111], [112], [113], [114], [115]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed.Hajji Piruz 17:34, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Template

18) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

18) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

18) {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.

Hajji Piruz banned

1) Hajji Piruz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is banned from Wikipedia for a period of one year.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Maybe, need to see more Fred Bauder 21:11, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

So far, the worst thing that I am guilty of is not assuming good faith (and the only reason I did that was because I followed WP:AGF as stated, literally). Me not assuming good faith does not deserve a one year block, at most, it deserves a harsh warning or a one week block.

The revert parole was put in place so that we would use the talk page more, so I dont understand what Tariqabjotu means. Is he implying that its not a good thing that we discussed on the talk pages? What is Tariqabjotu's definition of disruption, discussing edits on the talk page? This proposal is excessive, I think we can all agree on that.Hajji Piruz 21:35, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

We could ban nearly everybody involved in this matter. However I certainly don't propose doing so. I will propose blocking those who aren't reasonably civil to others. Your remarks to Atabek certainly cross the line. The idea you somehow have license to dump on him is ill-advised. Fred Bauder 17:34, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

With all due respect I have to disagree. Limiting blocks to incivility would be a huge mistake. I am collecting evidences on the basis of serious POV pushing by several users who have systematically replaced and deleted the word Armenia and Armenians in several article. The mistake of not bringing this up during the last arbitration should not be repeated a second time given that the incivility of many users was/is a desperate attempt to stop that. If now you are saying that blocks will be solely applied for incivility then I hope the arbitration will consider taking the necessary measures to stop POV pushing. Because personally, I don't see the point of accumulating evidences other than incivility, when I think worst, much worst disruptions have been committed. I hope now you understand why many of us have requested more time...this has to be done right, for all to finally stop the disruption. - Fedayee 23:59, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

If you think that people should be punished for removal of the word "Armenia", then Hajji Piruz is guilty of removing the word “Azerbaijan” in an endless number of articles. I can provide a complete list of articles where he edit warred over the use of that one word. I actually did provide a few diffs of such editing by this person in my evidence. --Grandmaster 06:18, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

What a misrepresentation. You cannot use the term Azerbaijan to describe a region where it was not used for prior to 1918. The term Azerbaijan is used incorrectly in literally dozens of articles on Wikipedia. Just like you cannot use the term United States to describe a geographical region in the America's before its foundation, you cannot use the term Azerbaijan to represent a geographical region prior to 1918 either.

Wikipedia is supposed to be as accurate as possible, but when people add geographical entities to articles where the entity did not even exist is a falsification of history and is not correct. For example, in the Mirvarid_Dilbazi it says she was born in the Azerbaijan, a country which was founded in 1918, even though she was born in 1912 in a Russian province. Even more incorrect is that Azerbaijan is wikilinked to the Republic of Azerbaijan which became independent in 1991, 79 years after this person was born. When I tried to fix this incorrect statement, I was reverted.

I have never taken out the name Azerbaijan just for the sake of taking out the name Azerbaijan, as you suggest, I have done it for accuracy reason. Tell me, if you are reading the Timur article and it say that something like "Timur was born in Uzbekistan" would not remove the inaccuracy? Timur was born centuries prior to the foundation of Uzbekistan.

I can also bring up dozens of articles also where the term Azerbaijan has been used incorrectly and I have tried to correct the mistake and have been prevented from doing so by other users.

We are supposed to be here to make these articles as accurate as possible for the readers, not edit based on nationalism. WP:AGF.Hajji Piruz 14:06, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Azerbaijan is a perfectly legitimate and scholarly accepted term to denote that area before 1918. This was discussed with you many times. There’s a book by Tadeusz Swietochowski called Russian Azerbaijan, 1905 – 1920: The Shaping of a National Identity in a Muslim Community. Still you removed the name of the country from the articles without any consensus. --Grandmaster 12:13, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

We are not going to have this discussion here. In the Academic context of distinguishing a certain area with a modern viewpoint, its acceptable, but not when you are writing in a historical viewpoint. Swietochowski himself in his book clearly states that Azerbaijan was not used for the area of the Republic of Azerbaijan but for Iran throughout most of history, meaning prior to 1918...Hajji Piruz 17:01, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

There is a reference, of which you're well aware due to editing on the History of the name Azerbaijan page, to 1863 article by British Consul to Persia published by the Royal Geographic Society of London, specifically citing "the land which Persians know as Russian Azerbaijan" [116]. So your claim above saying "Azerbaijan was not used for the area of the Republic of Azerbaijan prior to 1918", made again along the lines of attacking Republic of Azerbaijan and the independent statehood of Azerbaijani people specifically, does not hold water and is in bad faith. Atabek 19:30, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to involve myself in the disruption of this workshop page by debating on an issue that isnt even disputed amongst the scholarly community. WP:AGF Atabek, and also, stop dividing along national lines.Hajji Piruz 23:55, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

If you scroll above, you will see that your edit on this page was the first to bring content issues into the Workshop. Atabek 00:21, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Um...Grandmaster brought the discussion here...not me.Hajji Piruz 17:17, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. This definitely needs to be on the table. All the revert parole has done is take the disruption from the mainspace to the talkspace. -- tariqabjotu 15:50, 12 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:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

3) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

4) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

5) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Analysis of evidence

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

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

General discussion

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others: