Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Xed 2/Proposed decision

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

all proposed

After considering /Evidence and discussing proposals with other arbitrators, parties and others at /Workshop place proposals which are ready for voting here.

Arbitrators should vote for or against each point or abstain.

  • Only items that receive a majority "support" vote will be passed.
  • Items that receive a majority "oppose" vote will be formally rejected.
  • Items that do not receive a majority "support" or "oppose" vote will be open to possible amendment by any Arbitrator if he so chooses. After the amendment process is complete, the item will be voted on one last time.

Conditional votes for or against and abstentions should be explained by the Arbitrator before or after his/her time-stamped signature. For example, an Arbitrator can state that she/he would only favor a particular remedy based on whether or not another remedy/remedies were passed.

On this case, 2 Arbitrators is recused and 2 are inactive, so 4 votes are a majority.

For all items

Proposed wording to be modified by Arbitrators and then voted on. Non-Arbitrators may comment on the talk page.

Contents

[edit] Motions and requests by the parties

Place those on /Workshop.

[edit] Proposed temporary injunctions

Four net "support" votes needed to pass (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support")
24 hours from the first vote is normally the fastest an injunction will be imposed.

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed orders}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:


[edit] Proposed final decision

[edit] Proposed principles

[edit] No personal attacks

1) Wikipedia:No personal attacks requires users to refrain from personal attacks. There is no exception for instances when a user may be provoked by inappropriate behavior.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 22:38, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
  2. ➥the Epopt 03:09, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
  3. Raul654 19:09, 18 December 2005 (UTC) - while provocation does not excuse making personal attacks, it can be seen as a mitigating factor.
  4. James F. (talk) 23:17, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
  5. Kelly Martin (talk) 04:45, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
  6. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 02:50, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
  7. Concur with Raul. Neutralitytalk 21:15, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  8. SimonP 04:40, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Neutral point of view

2) Wikipedia:Neutral point of view requires fair representation of all significant points of view regarding a topic. This foundational policy of Wikipedia rules out gaming of Wikipedia' consensus process by masking point of view editing as demands for sources which, when provided, are then deleted together with the information they support.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 22:53, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
  2. ➥the Epopt 03:09, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
  3. Raul654 19:09, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
  4. James F. (talk) 23:17, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
  5. Kelly Martin (talk) 04:45, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
  6. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 02:50, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
  7. Neutralitytalk 21:15, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  8. SimonP 04:40, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Use reliable sources

3) Wikipedia:Reliable sources requires that a cited source contain the information for which it is the cited source.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 22:53, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
  2. ➥the Epopt 03:09, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
  3. Raul654 19:09, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
  4. James F. (talk) 23:17, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
  5. Kelly Martin (talk) 04:45, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
  6. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 02:50, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
  7. Neutralitytalk 21:15, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  8. SimonP 04:40, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Scrutiny is part of parole

4) A user on parole must expect that his or her actions will be subject to closer-than-normal scrutiny. Such attention is an innate aspect of parole.

Support:
  1. ➥the Epopt 03:09, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
  2. Raul654 16:26, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
  3. James F. (talk) 23:17, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
  4. Fred Bauder 01:05, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
  5. Kelly Martin (talk) 04:45, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
  6. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 02:50, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
  7. Neutralitytalk 21:15, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  8. SimonP 04:40, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Proposed findings of fact

[edit] Divine Intervention (film)

1) One issue raised by Snowspinner is Xed's editing and comments relating to Divine Intervention (film) which concerns a man who lives in East Jersusalem. His girlfriend lives in the West Bank city of Ramallah. The viewpoint presented is of life under Israeli occupation.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 16:54, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
  2. ➥the Epopt 03:09, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
  3. Raul654 19:09, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
  4. James F. (talk) 23:17, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
  5. Kelly Martin (talk) 04:45, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
  6. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 02:53, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
  7. Neutralitytalk 21:15, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  8. SimonP 04:40, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Editing issues

1.1) An early issue was whether the word "occupation" could be used in the article with 209.212.72.19 inserting the word [1] and removed by Jayjg [2] and A second issue concerned the movie not being considered for an Academy Award [3], information by 209.212.72.19, removed by Jayjg [4] with the comment "rv massive unsource POVing"; Xed reverted [5] with the comment "rv bizarre censorship".

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 16:54, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
  2. ➥the Epopt 03:09, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
  3. James F. (talk) 23:17, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
  4. Kelly Martin (talk) 04:45, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
  5. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 02:53, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
  6. Neutralitytalk 21:15, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  7. SimonP 04:40, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Sources demanded

2) After Xed restored, Jayjg demanded sources [6] [7] despite the fact that a simple Google search [8] gives 80,000 hits. He also removed any reference to occupation.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 20:06, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
  2. ➥the Epopt 03:09, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
Oppose:
  1. (A) We shouldn't be deciding content, and (B) the methedology of this is flatly wrong. Googling for "Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion" gets 123,000 hits - that doesn't mean they are real. Jay was simply demanding sourcing from people who were adding Zionist conspiracy nonsense into the article. Raul654 16:23, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
  2. As with Raul, we shouldn't try to decide content. James F. (talk) 23:17, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
  3. As per Raul. ArbCom should not decide content disputes, and we should not validate the wholly invalid "Google test". Kelly Martin (talk) 04:45, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
  4. As above. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 02:53, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
  5. Neutralitytalk 21:15, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  6. ➥the Epopt 14:24, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  7. SimonP 04:40, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Abstain:

[edit] Personal attack by Xed

3) Xed then reverted [9] with the comment, "remove weasel-like wording from propagandist".

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 21:34, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
  2. ➥the Epopt 03:09, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
  3. Raul654 19:35, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
  4. James F. (talk) 23:17, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
  5. Kelly Martin (talk) 04:45, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
  6. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 02:53, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
  7. Neutralitytalk 21:15, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  8. SimonP 04:40, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Jayjg insists

4) Again Jayjg insists on a specific reference [10] with the comment "if there are "many observers", then please provide evidence of it. So far you have one non-notable (see talk), also, please don't remove request for citation, instead provide citations".

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 21:38, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
  2. ➥the Epopt 03:09, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
  3. Raul654 19:35, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
  4. James F. (talk) 23:17, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
  5. Kelly Martin (talk) 04:45, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
  6. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 02:53, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
  7. Neutralitytalk 21:15, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  8. SimonP 04:40, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Revert warring by Xed

5) Rather than supplying a reference Xed reverted [11] with the comment "rv weasel"

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 22:18, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
  2. ➥the Epopt 03:09, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
  3. Raul654 19:35, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
  4. James F. (talk) 23:17, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
  5. Kelly Martin (talk) 04:45, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
  6. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 02:53, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
  7. Neutralitytalk 21:15, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  8. SimonP 04:40, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Viriditas joins the edit war

6) Viriditas then joined the edit war [12] with the comment "Reverted edits by Xed to last version by Jayjg. Please do not remove citation requests."

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 22:18, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
  2. ➥the Epopt 03:09, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
  3. Raul654 19:35, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
  4. James F. (talk) 23:17, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
  5. Kelly Martin (talk) 04:45, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
  6. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 02:53, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
  7. Neutralitytalk 21:15, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  8. SimonP 04:40, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Xed continues with personal attacks

7) Xed then reverted [13] with the comment "rv weasel tag-team".

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 22:18, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
  2. ➥the Epopt 03:09, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
  3. Raul654 19:35, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
  4. James F. (talk) 23:17, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
  5. Kelly Martin (talk) 04:45, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
  6. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 02:53, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
  7. Neutralitytalk 21:15, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  8. SimonP 04:40, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Xed provides references

8) Xed provides references [14]

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 22:18, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
  2. ➥the Epopt 03:09, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
  3. Raul654 19:35, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
  4. James F. (talk) 23:17, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
  5. Kelly Martin (talk) 04:45, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
  6. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 02:53, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
  7. Neutralitytalk 21:15, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  8. SimonP 04:40, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] References and content removed by Viriditas

9) Viriditas removes content and references [15] [16] with the comment "After reviewing your citations and observing that they do not claim what you say they claim, I have removed the citation request as well as the disputed content; rm superfluous content and links" and "rm opinion by "Tariq Shadid". If he's not a film critic, I fail to see the relevance of a MD."

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 22:18, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
  2. ➥the Epopt 03:09, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
  3. Raul654 19:35, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
  4. James F. (talk) 23:17, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
  5. Kelly Martin (talk) 04:45, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
  6. Neutralitytalk 21:15, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  7. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 06:31, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  8. SimonP 04:40, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Xed makes another personal attack

10) Xed restores [17] with the comment "you've been caught lying. you can't review all those pages in 3 minutes!" In actuality, 9 minutes had elapsed between the sources being provided and being removed.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 22:18, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
  2. ➥the Epopt 03:09, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
  3. Raul654 19:35, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
  4. James F. (talk) 23:17, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
  5. Kelly Martin (talk) 04:45, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
  6. Neutralitytalk 21:15, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  7. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 06:31, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  8. SimonP 04:40, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Jayjg makes a valid point

11) Addressing the matter of a "vigorous campaign by Zionist activists to bar the movie", Jayjg points out the inadequacy of the cited source [18] with the comment 'link does not refer to any "vigorous campaign" or any "zionist activists"'.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 22:18, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
  2. ➥the Epopt 03:09, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
  3. Raul654 19:35, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
  4. James F. (talk) 23:17, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
  5. Kelly Martin (talk) 04:45, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
  6. Neutralitytalk 21:15, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  7. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 06:31, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  8. SimonP 04:40, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Further work by Viriditas

12) Veriditas has continued to work with the article and has substantially improved it while maintaining a reasonably courteous relationship with Xed. See edits of 19 Dec and Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Xed_2/Proposed_decision#Dog_with_a_bone.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 20:33, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
  2. Raul654 16:27, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
  3. James F. (talk) 23:17, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
  4. Kelly Martin (talk) 04:45, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
  5. Neutralitytalk 21:15, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  6. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 06:31, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  7. SimonP 04:40, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Xed has left Wikipedia

13) In an e-mail message to Fred Bauder, Xed has stated that he has left Wikipedia.

Support:
  1. ➥the Epopt 19:07, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
  2. James F. (talk) 23:17, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
  3. Kelly Martin (talk) 04:45, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
  4. Neutralitytalk 21:15, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
  1. Fred Bauder 01:08, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
  2. SimonP 04:40, 27 January 2006 (UTC), still seems to be editing
Abstain:

[edit] 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.

[edit] Xed warned regarding personal attacks

1) Xed, who remains on personal attack parole, is reminded to avoid personal attacks even in the face of extreme provocation.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 22:53, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
  2. ➥the Epopt 03:09, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
  3. Raul654 19:35, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
  4. James F. (talk) 23:17, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
  5. Kelly Martin (talk) 04:45, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
  6. Neutralitytalk 21:15, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  7. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 07:28, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  8. SimonP 04:40, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Xed warned regarding citing unreliable sources

2) Xed is warned regarding use of a source such as this one which does not support the information it is cited in support of.

Support:
  1. A source must explicitly set information forth, not be something which if read between the lines, might support a contention. Fred Bauder 22:53, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
  2. ➥the Epopt 03:09, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
  3. Raul654 19:35, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
  4. James F. (talk) 23:17, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
  5. Kelly Martin (talk) 04:45, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
  6. Neutralitytalk 21:15, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  7. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 07:28, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  8. SimonP 04:40, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Viriditas and Jayjg reminded regarding NPOV

3) Viriditas (talk • contribs) and Jayjg (talk • contribs) are reminded that Wikipedia is a cooperative enterprise which operates by consensus. Masking of POV editing under the guise of citing NPOV and demanding sources is inappropriate.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 22:53, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
  2. ➥the Epopt 03:09, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
Oppose:
  1. Jay and Viriditas should be commended for their work keeping "Zionists are evil!" conpiracy theories out of our articles. Raul654 16:28, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
  2. On the balance, I think Viriditas, at least, has striven toward NPOV more than POV, and therefore oppose any censure of this editor. Kelly Martin (talk) 04:45, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
  3. Neutralitytalk 21:15, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  4. SimonP 04:40, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Abstain:
  1. I agree with both Fred and Raul's points, and as such, abstain. James F. (talk) 23:17, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
  2. Per James. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 07:28, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Viriditas commended

3.1) Viriditas is commended for continuing to work with the article substantially improving it while maintaining a courteous attitude toward the difficult user Xed.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 20:33, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
  2. Raul654 16:27, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
  3. James F. (talk) 23:17, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
  4. Kelly Martin (talk) 04:45, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
  5. Neutralitytalk 21:15, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  6. ➥the Epopt 14:25, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  7. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 07:28, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  8. SimonP 04:40, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Snowspinner reminded

4) Considering the triviality of Xed's offenses when considered in context, Snowspinner (talk • contribs) is reminded to carefully investigate the context in which offenses occur before making a decision to act as a prosecutor with respect to actions of one user to the exclusion of the others involved in a conflict.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 00:07, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
Oppose:
  1. ➥the Epopt 03:09, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
  2. Raul654 19:35, 18 December 2005 (UTC) - Concur with Epopt
  3. I don't believe Xed's offenses deserve to be labeled as "trivial". Kelly Martin (talk) 04:45, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Abstain:
  1. Not sure. James F. (talk) 23:17, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
  2. Neutralitytalk 21:15, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  3. A good principle in general to carefully investigate first, and Snowspinner is often hasty to act, but in this case I don't think the reminder is necessary. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 07:28, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  4. SimonP 04:40, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Snowspinner commended

4.1) Considering Xed's current parole status, Snowspinner's actions were appropriate.

Support:
  1. ➥the Epopt 03:09, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
  2. Raul654 19:35, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
  3. Kelly Martin (talk) 04:45, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Oppose:
  1. Too hasty Fred Bauder 01:10, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
Abstain:
  1. Not sure. James F. (talk) 23:17, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
  2. Neutralitytalk 21:15, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  3. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 07:28, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  4. SimonP 04:40, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Xed banned

5) Xed (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log) is banned for one year.

Support:
  1. ➥the Epopt 19:09, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
    James F. (talk) 23:17, 21 December 2005 (UTC) Though this is unnecessary if he really has left.
  2. Kelly Martin (talk) 04:45, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Note that Kelly is, alas, no longer an Arbitrator, so could not withdraw this vote even if she wanted to ➥the Epopt 01:48, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  1. Neutralitytalk 21:15, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
    Not to deny the good work he has done, and I think this is perhaps a bit long. But I've been really taken aback at Xed's abrasiveness and failure to work with others respectfully, and I don't think the personal attack parole from the previous case has helped. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 07:28, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
  1. No basis for this Fred Bauder 23:34, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
  2. Some editors have expressed to me their opposition to this. Neutralitytalk 01:16, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  3. Xed is a highly political editor, this leads to conflicts but it also leads to an impressive dedication to adding content covering underrepresented parts of the world. I would suggest a one year ban from certain areas of the encyclopedia, or a period of confinement to Africa related topics. This might limit the conflicts and still allow him to contribute. A total ban is excessive and it would be a shame to lose Xed's very useful contributions. - SimonP 04:40, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  4. This remedy seems to be standing in the way of closing this case, so I'm withdrawing it ➥the Epopt 01:46, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Abstain:
  1. For the moment. Reasonable people have asked me to reconsider and I'm not so committed to my vote not to do so. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 19:22, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. Switched to abstain pending further deliberation. James F. (talk) 12:36, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed enforcement

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Discussion by Arbitrators

[edit] General

[edit] Motion to close

Four net "support" votes needed to close case (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support")
24 hours from the first motion is normally the fastest a case will close.

Case is finished, every vote has a majority. Neutralitytalk 21:16, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

  1. Neutralitytalk 21:16, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
    Close Fred Bauder 23:09, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. Close ➥the Epopt 14:25, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
    Close. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 07:29, 3 January 2006 (UTC) Abstain for now. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 19:22, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
    Close. James F. (talk) 16:55, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  3. Nice little deadlock, but time to close it. Fred Bauder 01:55, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  4. Close, let's finish this before its three month anniversary. - SimonP 15:31, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/e/q/Wikipedia%7ERequests_for_arbitration_Xed_2_Proposed_decision_61a4.html"