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

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

1) Konstable resigned his sysop flag due to circumstances being addressed by this Arbitration case. During this case, he must regain his sysop priveleges through normal means.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed by me, Miltopia, uninvolved but watching with interest. Reword if necessary. Probably unnecessary if he's gone, but if he comes back he probably shouldn't be able to just ask for them back until this is decided. Miltopia 10:18, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we need a formal temporary injunction on this. There is zero chance that a bureaucrat is going to reissue Konstable's buttons while this is pending, even in the unlikely event he were to ask for them. Newyorkbrad 17:31, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're probably right. When I was looking at this Konstable stuff I saw a link to a previous case where something like this popped up in the decision and thought it might be useful, but if it's superfluous don't bother. Miltopia 21:50, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

1) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

1) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

1) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

1) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

1) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

1) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

1) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

1) Konstable (talk · contribs) was an experienced and respected editor, with a total of more than 7000 edits beginning in November 2005.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. In a user conduct case it is appropriate to have some general background about the person whom one is talking about - not to exculpate any misbehavior that may have taken place, but as relevant to assessing good faith, mitigating factors, etc. Newyorkbrad 15:47, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2) On September 6, 2006, Konstable submitted a request for adminship. On September 13, 2006, Konstable was promoted to administrator after his RFA closed with a result of 47/0/0.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed, again, just as background on whom the Committee is dealing with, if it's deemed necessary to proceed with the case. Newyorkbrad 15:52, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3) In the two months between the close of his RfA and the events underlying this case, Konstable (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) was active as an administrator, logged more than 2000 administrator actions, and performed his responsibilities in a satisfactory manner.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Again, for context. Newyorkbrad 15:54, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

4) On November 5, 2006, Konstable created a new account with the username of "AltUser." Konstable later explained on this version of his userpage that he had recently become concerned that Wikipedia had become an unwelcoming place for new users, and wanted to experience how an unknown user might be treated in certain areas of the project such as deletion pages.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Newyorkbrad 15:59, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

5) Use of an alternate account for the stated purpose of experiencing how a new user might be treated is expressly declared to be one of the legitimate uses of multiple accounts under the sockpuppet policy, an official policy, which states: "Multiple accounts have legitimate uses. For example, prominent users might create a new account in order to experience how the community functions for new users. In particular, some have suggested that Jimbo should get, and edit from, a sock puppet account. Perhaps he does." Newyorkbrad 16:09, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Newyorkbrad 16:09, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

6) Presumably to avoid any accusation that his alternate account was being used as a concealed sockpuppet in violation of policy, Konstable chose the username "AltUser" for his alternate "testing" account and mentioned on AltUser's userpage, AltUser's talk page, and in certain discussions that it was the alternate account of an established user.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Note that Konstable appears to claim (on his own talkpage linked above) he also tagged the AltUser account as a sock on its userpage. Because the userpage has been deleted, I cannot check this, but the arbitrators can. Newyorkbrad 16:09, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can confirm that AltUser's first two edits (unless there were others to pages since deleted) were to his talk and user pages proclaiming that he was a sockpuppet. The first edit had the edit summary "Im a sock and Im proud".-gadfium 22:58, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal slightly revised per gadfium's comment. Newyorkbrad 03:37, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

7) Predictably, the overt nature of Konstable's alternate account caused his attempt to experience Wikipedia from the point of view of a new user to fail, because it was readily apparent from the username, userpage, contribution history, and acknowledged in some of his statements that this was an alternate account of an established user and not actually a new user. Newyorkbrad 16:09, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Newyorkbrad 05:35, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

8) Perhaps as part of Konstable's experiment, AltUser adopted a somewhat confrontational editing style. AltUser's contributions also included closing deletion discussions with what Konstable believed were obvious delete results. This drew attention as non-administrators generally do not close XfD discussions with a delete result. Several administrators and editors raised reasonable concerns about AltUser's conduct.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Newyorkbrad 16:33, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

9) AltUser then made a somewhat uncivil post to the Administrators' Noticeboard. At this point he was blocked, initially for 24 hours for "trolling" and then indefinitely as an "abusive sockpuppet." The blocking admins and others did not yet know the identity of the primary accountholder and believed he might be a user with a disruptive past or a troll.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Newyorkbrad 05:09, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This may be speculative with regard to who knew what, and how early on. —freak(talk) 09:37, Nov. 18, 2006 (UTC)

10) Konstable created a second alternate account, which he named "AlternativeAccountK", to continue his discussions with administrators with whom "AltUser" had interacted. This account was also prominently labelled as an alternate account. Although this account did not engage in disruptive activity, its first edits made it clear that the account was being operated by the same user as AltUser, which had been blocked. Therefore, AlternativeAccountK was tagged as a disruptive sockpuppet and blocked as well.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Newyorkbrad 16:33, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

11) Konstable then unblocked AlternativeAccountK. He has contended that he did not violate the blocking policy, which forbids an administrator from unblocking his or her own account, because his primary account was not blocked. Other editors have opined that this action did violate the policy because Konstable unblocked an account belonging to himself and/or because Konstable had another account, AltUser, that was blocked. At a minimum, the self-unblock was unwise, although not done with malicious intent.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Newyorkbrad 05:17, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

12) By this point, several administrators had become very concerned about these accounts' activities and had a legitimate and reasonable basis for their concerns. Konstable identified himself as the operator of AltUser and AlternativeAccountK. He did not acknowledge the legitimacy of the concerns that were being expressed about his actions under those accounts. Instead, Konstable vented his frustration at the negative reactions to his experiment, at some comments that he perceived as assuming bad faith rather than asking him why he was doing what he was doing, and at the state of Wikipedia in general as he perceived it.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Newyorkbrad 16:33, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

13) On November 11, Konstable stated that he was leaving the project. He has redirected his userpage to his talkpage, placed a goodbye message on his talkpage, requested desysopping and was voluntarily desysopped. He also posted to the requests for arbitration page when this case was filed, but has stated that he does not intend to participate in the arbitration itself. His last contribution, which was his request for desysopping, was on November 14.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Newyorkbrad 05:35, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

14) During his last days of activity, Konstable made a series of sharply negative and unnecessarily harsh comments about the project and some other editors. Certain unnecessarily harsh and hurtful comments were directed at Konstable as well.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. I don't believe it would be useful to parse the individual comments that were made as none of them warrant ArbCom action, though there were certainly things that should not have been said. Newyorkbrad 05:35, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1) Per User talk:Konstable (this edit [1]), Konstable has left the project. Per this [2] he has been voluntarily desysopped.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Noted. Guy (Help!) 10:07, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe re-worded... Miltopia 10:19, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Or at least spelt properly :-D (Bulding -> Building) Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 23:34, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It seems evident that he has not left the project, see Special:Contributions/Konstable II. —freak(talk) 10:33, Nov. 18, 2006 (UTC)

1) It is asserted in the complaint that the existence of alternate accounts is prima facie evidence of wrongdoing. Alternate accounts are explicitly permitted provided that they are not used for block evasion, astroturfing or other disruption, (see WP:SOCK) and there is no requirement to identify the main account.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Important principle. Guy (Help!) 10:14, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reword - alternate accounts are permitted for legit reasons, after all. Miltopia 10:20, 15 November 2006 (UTC) Apparently I misread, disregard this haha Miltopia 15:16, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've read the complaint and I cannot see this assertion, any chance someone can highlight which part they believe is saying that? The only assertions I can see are that the accounts were created as sockpuppets with no declaration of who they were, there doesn't appear to be an assertion this is wrongdoing on its own, merely a statement of fact setting the scene. The subsequent acttivity is the problem being reported. Although I of course agree with the basic principle (though I'd characterise the general feeling to be that sockpuppets are not be used without pretty good reason), I'm not sure of the relevance here if no one is making and assertion contrary to this. --pgk 14:11, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1) Konstable unblocked his own alternate account AlternativeAccountK [3]. Self-unblocking is strongly discouraged. This applies even though the stated reason for blocking (sockpuppet of banned user) was factually incorrect.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Guy (Help!) 10:16, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is where it gets difficult. In my understanding blocks are per person, not per account. The fact that one of his alternate accounts User:AltUser was blocked. Theoretically the person was blocked, so an outright statement that the reason for blocking was factually incorrect seems questionable. In fact since the new accounts first edit was to respond to the blocking of the original account, it would indeed seem evidenced that the block reason was factually correct. (As noted not that it makes a difference to the action of unblock one self anyway...) --pgk 14:05, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Correct. That's why block/ban evading socks are indeffed, and sometimes the main account's block is reset because of the block/ban evasion. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 08:25, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I clarified part of the item above. It seems that he technically unblocked what was seen as his sockpuppet's sockpuppet, and though he himself wasn't evading anything, the second account was evading the block of the first account, so the block (though being indisputably valid in any case) would have been "factually correct" as well, if the word "blocked" had been used rather than "banned". Trifling difference at this point. —freak(talk) 09:50, Nov. 18, 2006 (UTC)

1) As determined by CheckUser [4] It was proven that whoever ran the account User:AltUser created the attack account User:Ryushort, imposter account of established editor User:Ryulong. It was later determined that User:AltUser was created by User:Konstable, which implies that he created the account User:Ryushort.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. semper fi — Moe 23:24, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was not proven. Your own "evidence" that you presented of this you had to cross out yourself because it made no sense, and Dmcdevit claims that they were created at the same time, which they weren't - check the logs. If I make 11 edits (actually more, some to deleted pages), and each one is from a different open proxy, the chances that one of them is a vandal is quite high no matter who I am. See also Ryulong's comment. If you really need this, maybe you could say that AltUser edited from the same proxy as Ryushort, but it was most definitely not proven that they are the same simply because it is not true.

Comment by others:

1) As an experienced editor Konstable would have been well aware that closing of deletion debates as delete by non-admins is contrary to established practice. As an admin Konstable was more than able to fully close the debates, doing so using his sockpuppet contrary to that practice, rather than an open discussion on the merits is directly contrary to do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I was considering proposing something to this effect. I think it should be noted, but don't think there's a need to do anything punitive in relation to this. – Chacor 02:57, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would very much like to see someone provide some diffs with this and show where I have ever been disruptive. Regarding closing AfDs see my comment above. It is being done right now and it is not discouraged anywhere in writing. And in fact before I was blocked I was told not to close non-obvious AfDs, nothing about closing AfDs as delete. (I was not blocked for closing AfDs anyway, I was blocked for trying to bring this matter up on WP:AN)--Konstable II 10:11, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed --pgk 14:56, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Konstable: WP:DELPRO#Non-administrators closing discussions. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 10:13, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1) Non-administrators should not close a discussion as "delete" (unless the item in question has already been deleted) due to their technical inability to perform said deletion. Such closures should generally be considered invalid, and reverted.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I know at least 2 non-admins who do this regularly (though 1 has since been promoted to adminship as far as I know). The general thing to do here is exactly what I did with AltUser - put a {{db}} with a link to the AfD and explanation that it has been closed as delete. Nowhere is this forbidden or even discouraged. If you want to forbid this, why not take this to the community rather than have ArbCom, a small group of people, decide this matter?--Konstable II 10:08, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, I was not aware of that WP:DELPRO#Non-administrators closing discussions. But this looks like a very vague statement "generally should not", and even that on a page that is not even a guideline. I hardly see how violating that little footnote that says that this "generally should not happen" created disruption. I am apparently a danger to Wikipedia now so I do not have the ability to go back and check, but I remember one of them was actually a vandal hoax article, and the rest were also obvious and had unanimous consensus. What benefit does wikipedia get by prohibiting non-admins from helping out with backlogs even in such obvious situations? It has being done already by others anyway.--Konstable II 10:30, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed. Feel free to reword/obliviate. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 08:28, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not needed, but let's try a less-wordy version. —freak(talk) 09:29, Nov. 18, 2006 (UTC)

Cheers for that. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 10:02, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The community did, at WP:DELPRO#Non-administrators closing discussions. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 10:12, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1) Konstable II (talk · contribs), claims to be Konstable, and has edited this arbitration case on behalf of Konstable, and for the purpose of attacking participants in this case.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Seems self-evident, might be expanded depending on behavior. —freak(talk) 10:16, Nov. 18, 2006 (UTC)

Whom am I attacking, and why the hell can't I comment on my own arbitration page?--Konstable II 10:36, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would appreciate it if you make all further edits to this case using your original account, if only so you won't be able to come back a month from now saying "whoa there, that wasn't me!". —freak(talk) 10:53, Nov. 18, 2006 (UTC)

Not going to happen for reasons I would rather not explain, but feel free to run a CheckUser. So where did I ever attack anyone?--Konstable II 10:59, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1) {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) The Arbitration Committee takes note that Konstable was desysopped, at his own request, on November 14, 2006. Therefore, it is unnecessary to rule on whether his actions would have warranted action against his administrator status.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Newyorkbrad 18:00, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This seems entirely reasonable to me. Since Konstable is no longer an administrator, there seems no point in pursuing any such findings.-gadfium 22:18, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2) In the event that Konstable were to request resysopping at some future time, the situation would be governed by the principles set forth in Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Giano, including Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Giano#Return_of_access_levels, Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Giano#Administrator_conduct, and Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Giano#Second_chances.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. This is possibly premature given that Konstable has left the project, but at least one arbitrator has suggested the case should continue precisely to address this issue. Note that in the Giano case, the committee ruled that "determining whether a user left under controversial circumstances is, in most cases, to be left up to bureaucrats' discretion." In this case, it seems pretty clear that Konstable left in the midst of a controversy, but I do not know whether the Committee wishes to rule on such an issue in the abstract or leave it to the bureaucrats to deal with if and when it might ever become relevant. Newyorkbrad 18:07, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure if this requires an ArbCom ruling. It seems clear that he left under controversial circumstances, and that therefore if he returns he will need to apply for adminship through RfA.-gadfium 22:18, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The arbitrators agreed to hear the case even though Konstable was voluntarily deadminned. Presumably they are looking for some sort of formal closure. Thatcher131 03:19, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Prefer 2.1, more to the point. —freak(talk) 09:56, Nov. 18, 2006 (UTC)

2.1) The Arbitration Committee finds that Konstable gave up his sysop access under controversial circumstances and must get them back through normal channels.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Sure, that account is dead anyway so there is no other way if I do decide to return eventually. Though if I do I don't think I'll want to be admin again.--Konstable II 10:55, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Also based on Giano case material[5]. —freak(talk) 09:56, Nov. 18, 2006 (UTC)

3) Konstable's user account is in good standing, no further action is taken against him, and he is free to resume editing Wikipedia at any time. Newyorkbrad 18:09, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I will do no such thing.--Konstable II 10:11, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then go already. – Chacor 10:14, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Leave me alone Chacor. Such nastiness from you only inspires me to stay longer.--Konstable II 10:16, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, stop wasting all our time. – Chacor 10:17, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly what I mean about Chacor's will to discuss and civility.--Konstable II 10:34, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed. Newyorkbrad 18:09, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this proposal.-gadfium 22:18, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

4) Upon consideration of Konstable's complaint against User:Moe Epsilon and User:Chacor, no action is taken against them.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Newyorkbrad 18:11, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this proposal.-gadfium 22:18, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

5) Should the principle noting that Konstable violated WP:POINT be approved, Konstable is to be reminded that disruption is unacceptable. However, no further action will be taken against him with regards to this incident.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. – Chacor 03:01, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

6) In light of his disruptive use of sockpuppets, if Konstable (talk · contribs) should decide to return to Wikipedia under any name, he shall edit from only one account.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

No disruption has ever been pointed out to me. A bunch of general statements, etc. If I ever edit again (highly unlikely within the next half a year at least) I will create a new account (such as this one) thank you.--Konstable II 10:13, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, if you choose to edit under a new identity, even a less transparent one, you should be limited to that account only. —freak(talk) 10:20, Nov. 18, 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. —freak(talk) 10:03, Nov. 18, 2006 (UTC)

7) Chacor (talk · contribs) and Moe Epsilon (talk · contribs) have refused discussion, and have labelled Konstable (talk · contribs) a "troll" on multiple occasions for his attempts to discuss the matter with them. As experienced editors (and Chacor is a former admin), they are well aware of civility policies, the implications of refusing discussion, saying that any futher comments will be reverted, and calling an established editor a "troll".

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed.--Konstable II 10:21, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quite on the contrary, you have indeed "discussed" it with me, and I have at no point said that further comments would be reverted. – Chacor 10:24, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Telling me to go away is not discussion. Maybe I should split you and Moe up - Moe was the one who told me that any futher attempts for me to contact him will be ignored and reverted (and this after just 2 comments on his talk page to which he did not reply).--Konstable II 10:32, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

1) {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:

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

1) {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:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others: