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.

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

2)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

3)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

2)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

3)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

4)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

tbd = to be decided.

1) The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among contributors. Use of the site for other purposes, such as advocacy or propaganda, furtherance of outside conflicts, publishing or promoting original research, and political or ideological struggle, is prohibited.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Standard. Ncmvocalist ( talk) 09:27, 29 June 2008 (UTC) reply

2) Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users; to approach even difficult situations in a dignified fashion and with a constructive and collaborative outlook; and to avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, harassment, disruptive point-making, and gaming the system, is prohibited.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Didn't we take "trolling" out of the list on more recent cases? I vaguely recall that there was some concern with the use of that term. Kirill ^{( prof)} 22:37, 29 June 2008 (UTC) reply

Call it disruption. Same thing with fewer negative conotations. Viridae ^Talk 01:43, 30 June 2008 (UTC) reply

Cheers - I didn't notice that I was copying directly off one of the older cases. Ncmvocalist ( talk) 06:49, 30 June 2008 (UTC) reply

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Standard. Ncmvocalist ( talk) 09:27, 29 June 2008 (UTC) 06:49, 30 June 2008 (UTC) reply

3) Wikipedia works by building consensus. This is done through the use of polite discussion—involving the wider community, if necessary—and dispute resolution, rather than through disruptive editing. Editors are each responsible for noticing when a debate is escalating into an edit war, and for helping the debate move to better approaches by discussing their differences rationally. Edit-warring, whether by reversion or otherwise, is prohibited; this is so even when the disputed content is clearly problematic, with only a few exceptions. Revert rules should not be construed as an entitlement or inalienable right to revert, nor do they endorse reverts as an editing technique.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Standard. Ncmvocalist ( talk) 15:58, 2 July 2008 (UTC) reply

1) The area of conflict refers to any pages associated with the administrative subdivisions of the United Kingdom and/or the British counties. The locus of the dispute is Yorkshirian ( talk · contribs)'s edits in relation to the area of conflict.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Ncmvocalist ( talk) 10:44, 2 July 2008 (UTC) It goes outside this area so no longer needed. Ncmvocalist ( talk) 15:34, 2 July 2008 (UTC) reply

2) Yorkshirian ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has engaged in a variety of unseemly conduct, including personal attacks, incivility and assumptions of bad faith. His talk page comments and edit summaries that relate to the area of conflict, are often problematic.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed; diffs needed. Ncmvocalist ( talk) 11:40, 2 July 2008 (UTC) reply

3) Yorkshirian has edit-warred, in relation to the area of conflict.

Comment by Arbitrators:

I'd just merge this into a the finding above, and add "attempts to turn Wikipedia into a battleground along ideological lines" to the list. There's no real need for multiple FoFs in a case like this, I think; it's neater to just have a single comprehensive listing for an editor, akin to Armenia-Azerbaijan. Kirill ^{( prof)} 12:29, 2 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Agreed. Ncmvocalist ( talk) 15:02, 2 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Need diffs - not sure if it will be sufficient to support this finding. Ncmvocalist ( talk) 11:42, 2 July 2008 (UTC) reply

4) Yorkshirian ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has engaged in a variety of unseemly and disruptive conduct, including personal attacks, incivility, and assumptions of bad faith; edit-warring; gaming the system; and attempts to use Wikipedia as a battleground along ideological lines.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Modified from Kirill's proposal, and alternate to my above proposed Fofs. Ncmvocalist ( talk) 16:11, 2 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Per Kirill. Ncmvocalist ( talk) 16:13, 2 July 2008 (UTC) reply

1) Per Ncmvocalist.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Noted. Kirill ^{( prof)} 12:32, 2 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

2) Per Ncmvocalist.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Noted. Kirill ^{( prof)} 12:32, 2 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

1) Yorkshirian ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has engaged in a variety of unseemly conduct, including personal attacks, incivility and assumptions of bad faith; edit-warring; and attempts to use Wikipedia as a battleground along ideological lines.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Diffs to be added when the evidence is complete. Kirill ^{( prof)} 12:32, 2 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

We probably should add principle 3 for completeness since including edit-warring. For this finding, might also add the word disruptive to the description, and include gaming the system to the description (if diffs support this too, I think he has - but not sure). These are in my proposal 4. Ncmvocalist ( talk) 15:57, 2 July 2008 (UTC) reply

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.

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Standard remedy for such cases. Kirill ^{( prof)} 12:32, 2 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Comment by parties:

Agreed. I was intially thinking that the ban only apply to articles on the geography of the United Kingdom, however the evidence pages notes that Yorkshirian's conduct spills over into other areas. -- Jza84 |  Talk  11:19, 4 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Disgaree, as this is completely one sided and does not take into account the mass evidence of disruption, harassment and other violations by Jza and MRSC, if I am blocked Jza will continue to be involved in cultural disputes, such as the sectarian quabbles he has had with Irish editors. [1] Also no diffs have been provided at all in any of the claims brought forward, so it would be a violation of WP:BAN. - Yorkshirian ( talk) 16:28, 13 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Agree. I don't think mentoring (in addition to this remedy) will be effective in this case. Ncmvocalist ( talk) 16:02, 2 July 2008 (UTC) reply

1) Given my own experiences with Yorkshirian, it's apparent that he (a) knows how to game the system, and (b) will do so to make a point, no matter how much opposition he encounters. This is not only disruptive and causes consternation for others, but it is frankly a waste of everyone's time as they try to work things out with him. That he will argue against a block on claimed technicalities (DDstretch didn't provide diffs in his block reason), then claim the block was inappropriate and the admin "completey [sic] inexperienced", is particularly disturbing. WP:IAR comes to mind. — KieferSkunk ( talk) — 19:31, 4 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I would merely suggest one adds "claimed" before "technicalities", as unless I have missed the relevance text when I read the various policy documents, it is really a non-existent technicality in the Blocking Policy. This minor point does not, however, detract from the point that I entirely agree with the view.  DDStretch   (talk) 20:44, 4 July 2008 (UTC) reply

That's fine - I added "claimed" to my statement. My point had been that his argument was, at best, only one of technicalities (it's like saying "Your signature went over the dotted line by a millimeter, therefore it's not valid!"), and that there wasn't any substantive argument there. But you make a good point that we should be as clear as possible here. — KieferSkunk ( talk) — 09:49, 5 July 2008 (UTC) reply

You're full of it Kiefer, I do not "game the system" I simply apply myself to Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Its clear how bias you are and you've been itching to get an injunction against me since the first time we crossed paths. I presented a mountain of evidence which PROVED everything I said right here, but you just convinently ignored it because you're being a bureaucrat and a game player, not a serious editor. There are no such thing as technicalities, there are rules; if somebody does not know the rules, then they have no business being an admin in the first place. - Yorkshirian ( talk) 16:04, 13 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

2) As seen in the evidence provided by several people involved in this case, Yorkshirian clearly does not respect consensus, and will even claim that consensus supports his version of a disputed map when his map directly contradicts the one agreed upon. Even under the best of good-faith assumptions, it is apparent that Yorkshirian has a very strong belief that his version is correct, and that anything that contradicts his viewpoint is not worth further discussion. This is heavy POV pushing that is most unwelcome here on Wikipedia. — KieferSkunk ( talk) — 19:31, 4 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

You've provided no diffs to prove this at all and your claims come across as personal attacks. Nor do you have any proof that I bring POV pushing. My sources are cited, every. single. time. Don't like that is how Wikipedia works? Then this is probably not the website for you. - Yorkshirian ( talk) 16:07, 13 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

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.

1) In keeping with blocking policy, which exists to reduce disruption to the project and to keep people from getting at each other's throats, a Wikipedia-wide ban seems appropriate considering that many attempts to reason with this editor have failed and have only resulted in an escalation of hostilities. We can only WP:AGF so much before we have to say "enough is enough". — KieferSkunk ( talk) — 19:31, 4 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

And what about Jza and MRSC, with the mountain of daming evidence provided here? It cleary tastes more than one to tango. And since Kiefer Skunk is a directly involved party, specifically in the opposite corner to me, being fighting to get something placed against me for anything he can. If I am to be banned it would be a violation of WP:BAN and WP:Blocking policy, because Keifer has a clear conflict of interest. Namely his bitter hatered of me as can be seen throughout his diffless attacks here. - Yorkshirian ( talk) 16:10, 13 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

2) At this point, it's difficult to gauge how much content has been affected in this dispute. It would be useful to get a set of experienced editors to spend some time going over the articles and either reaffirm or reform consensus on the correct and accepted content in the articles. It is possible that some of Yorkshirian's edits may be appropriate to include in some form, such as documenting historical facts or controversies about the regional issues. I do not think that an automatic revert of all of Yorkshirian's edits is necessarily appropriate. — KieferSkunk ( talk) — 19:31, 4 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Given the extent to which I see distortions of facts happening, I think such checks should be made on all contributions by Yorkshirian.  DDStretch   (talk) 20:58, 4 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Yes, I agree. I've no doubt Yorkshirian has made good, and good-faith edits thusfar, but I think its fair to say that his perspective on NPOV-writing isn't one which is very widely shared. This has been, and remains clear on the main Yorkshire article. -- Jza84 |  Talk  21:08, 4 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

1) In regards to the traditional and historic counties of Great Britain. The two have numerous times attempted to depict those who disagree with them as "outsiders", "fringe" or some other such degoratory remark without evidence to suggest this. Despite the two of them being in an extreme minority position, with Tangerines, Gladius Terrae Novae, Lewisdg2000, Owain, Arcturus, M A Mason, El Pollo Diablo, Bayerischermann, Modest Genius, Jmb, Heavens To Betsy, Sigurd Dragon Slayer, GSTQ, Marsbar man, White43, Bailrigg, Gal Lass, Ausbusinessnetwork, Snowy 1973, AleG2 all voicing an opposite stance on their talkpages. Claiming false majority in the case of Jza and MRSC on the issue is clear deceptive and damaging to the fair culture presenation of Great Britain within articles.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

2) Examples below of how this is destructive to Wikipedia and has taken place over a wide range of articles, involding numerous users.

• Saddleworth White Rose Society - the people of Saddleworth consider themselves part of the cultural region of Yorkshire which has existed for over 1000 years. Jza and MRSC launched an ethnic attack on the people of Saddleworth by removing referenced information in regards to the social situations. [2] The reference was not made by just any random person but by the Member of Parliament for the area in the House of Commons, the most powerful man in the area, who stated; [3]

“	Saddleworth is in real Yorkshire--it is still in Yorkshire, as far as we in Saddleworth are concerned--but Oldham is not. The two areas--Oldham's cotton industry and the wool industry in Saddleworth--offer a good example of my point.	”
—  Phil Woolas, MP for Oldham East and Saddleworth, at the House of Commons in 27 January 1999 [1]

• CountyWatch - Jza inserted his self described social authoritarian hand onto this article also. [4] Under a section on "beliefs" a piece of information was provided with a quote from the chairman of the organisation describing its beliefs. Jza continued to blank and censor this information for no other reason than WP:IDONTLIKEIT. He only relented when Tangerines intervened. [5] The whole article reads as highly dissaproving due to Jza's touch and repression. [6]

• Association of British Counties - a tag team effort and strong propaganda by MRSC and Jza has rendered the article on the ABC as a through gritted teeth, bitter triade against it, rather than a genuine fair article. [7] MRSC has insisted on violating WP:NEO by adding a derogatory neologism " outsider pressure group" instead of the NPOV pressure group. [8] Numerous editors had removed the word "outsider" before the twosome added it back. [9] When it was shown that the neologism has a grand total of 80 hits on Google.com, non in relation to the article at hand.. and that in Google Book Search it returned only 6 hits, [10] again non in relation to the article at hand. The duo then proceeded to revert without using summaries. [11] Despite its violation of WP:NEO, WP:CITE, WP:CON.
• High Sheriff of Yorkshire - James is very bitter that Yorkshire has the Heritige of this position existing for over 1000 years. This makes him very, very angry. The couple removed referenced information in regards to some points. [12] Both a reference from neutral website Politics.co.uk and the fact that pressure groups such as the Association of British Counties and the Yorkshire Ridings Society wish to return the shrievalties to the traditional counties. They ripped this out of the article, with no rationale other than WP:IDONTLIKEIT. [13] MRSC then targeted the region by trying to get the template which holds the High Sheriffs and Lord Lieutants deleted, despite the fact that they are placed together within scholary, acedemic publication such as " The Lord Lieutenants and High Sheriffs of Yorkshire, 1066-2000".
• WikiProject UK geography - the duo violated WP:OWN and WP:CENSOR on this projects guideline to facilitate their personal, minority view bias. [14] In regards to regional identities in Great Britain, the two attacked the royal family where MRSC said he "didn't care" what Charles of Wales (our next king) had to say on the issue,comparing him to a "gazetteer". And they also removed a specific reference from authoritive figures of the British Government on the topic, the people who decide. [15]

“	I can confirm that the government still stands by the statement ..... that the local authority areas and boundaries introduced in April 1974 do not alter the traditional boundaries of counties. The 1974 arrangements are entirely administrative, and need not affect long-standing loyalties and affinities.	”
—  Michael Portillo, Minister of Local Government and Inner Cities. 11 July 1990. [2]

• Lancashire - this article's progress has been incredibly stunted by Jza's social authoritarian stances and reverting of other users edits. MRSC has also prooved significant in its stunted quality. [16] Jza stops users adding anything regarding the area prior to 1974, robbing it of its long and fruitful history including removal of any mention of Manchester United. [17] [18] This is because it does not fall in line with his strange, extreme fringe desire for some sort of "Republic of Manchester"; he wishes to co-opt the history of Lancashire and "give" it to an entity which existed in law only from 1974 until 1986, with no thoughts or concerns for the cultural history of Lancashire which has existed for around 1000 years. Victims include Kezzer37, [19], El Pollo Diablo [20] and Lancsalot. On the talkpage he attacks yet another British culture group; Friends of Real Lancashire, so many alleged "minority" groups it seems.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

3) Jza has not only being involved with cultural clashed with me. But also heated cultural and sectarian clashes with Irish editors such as; BigDunc, Windyjarhead [21] and Domer48 [22]. BigDunc describes Jza's contribution to Wikipedia's Irish articles as "disturbing", [23] while MightyWarrior describes him as a "hot headed reactor". [24] Due to Jza's edits to sectarian articles; such as the Orange Institution [25] and supporting Rangers F.C. [26] this may go deeper.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

As pointed out in section 6.4 of the evidence page Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Yorkshirian/Evidence#Unsupported allegations etc in Yorkshirian's untrimmed statement at the opening of Arbcom procedings, I showed that Yorkshirian's summary of what MightyWarrior wrote abot Jza84 was inaccurate in a highly damaging way towards MightyWarrior, though equally damaging to Jza84 if the inaccurate claim was allowed to stand without challenge. In summary, although Yorkshirian states, about Jza84: " MightyWarrior describes him as a "hot headed reactor". [27]", above, what MightyWarrior did say was "This also 'hot-headed reaction' is not exactly what might I expect from a prospective administrator", which does not use the phrasing that Yorkshirian claims was used–phrasing that suggests that MightyWarrior was alleging this was a kind of consistent behavioural trait of Jza84, instead of being just a comment about one specific instance of behaviour. The biased characterization of facts given here, if unchallenged, does not help us gain a clear idea of the situation.  DDStretch   (talk) 16:43, 13 July 2008 (UTC) reply

So what you're saying is, MightyWarrior did in fact refer to Jza's behavioural traits as that of a "hot headed reactor"? Just as I said and just as anybody can see who checks the diff. [28] Thanks for the clarification. A person who makes a hot headed reaction, is thus a hot headed reactor. Just as somebody who makes a cup of tea, is a tea maker. Could you explain what you're going on about and how I have allegedly being "bias" by quoting another user's words?

I'm not sure what your point is ... and how this is allegedly damaging to MightyWarrior by referencing something he said, can't quite grasp your world view here and how this is supposed to change the evidence there at all? I would argue that the above melodramatics, with you acting as if I have somehow desanctified MightyWarrior by referencing his disaproving quote on Jza, would be as far more embrassing. - Yorkshirian ( talk) 17:11, 13 July 2008 (UTC) reply

I do not wish to perpetuate this, but I will repeat that your summary of MightyWarrior's words was not a truthful one: one can, and should (psychologists emphasize this, of which I am rather qualified to comment on) distinguish between a single instance of behaviour that might if other conditions are met indicate a particular personality trait, and

the personality trait itself. MightyWarrior's description was of a single instance of behaviour that had no other corroborating information to allow one to jump to concluding it was a personality trait of Jza84, whilst your summary of what MightyWarrior said used a form of expression that suggested that MightyWarrior had claimed it to be a personality trait. You thus misrepresented MightyWarrior and in so doing unfairly launched a personal attack upon Jza84. Your example of tea drinking is not the same kind of thing, though a surface resemblance exists, which can be used to apparently side-step legitimate concerns of labelling people in terms of personality traits. I do not believe it is helpful to indulge in amateur psychological diagnosis, especially in this situation.  DDStretch   (talk) 17:27, 13 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

4) I could cite numerous, numerous examples of this, because on Wikipedia, the editing lives of Jza and MRSC largely revolve around following me to articles. I'll just use yesterday and today as an example of the extranced MRSC following me to articles and stalking my contributions dragging their disagreement on an other article into other articles. His "fondness" for me is quite unsettling, showing WP:STALK and WP:TROLL violations. [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] They harass me very commonly in this manner.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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.

1) The two will continue to violate Wikipedia policies and misrepresent the culture and laws of Great Britain to suit their own minority agenda if this is not in place, such as the Local Government Act 1985. As presented above the two have also used interest groups in regards to Britain's counties as forms for attacks, here they indulge in WP:NEO, and violations of WP:NPOV to suit their agenda such as on the Association of British Counties article. [41]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

2) For one year. As per above, the terrible twosome have included in WP:HARASSMENT to goad me into disputes and in violation of WP:POINT.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

1) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

2) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

2) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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.

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

2) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

1) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

2) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

2) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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.

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

2) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

1) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

2) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

2) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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.

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

2) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Comment by Arbitrators:

I have reviewed the evidence page the workshop page prior to my vote. I'm making my comments with my votes on the PD page. FloNight ♥♥♥ 16:57, 5 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Comment by parties:

Comment by others: