Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jean-Thierry Boisseau/Proposed decision

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

all proposed

After considering /Evidence and discussing proposals with other Arbitrators, parties and others at /Workshop, arbitrators may 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 they 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, 0 Arbitrators are recused and 5 are inactive, so 5 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] Template

1) {text of proposed principle}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Courtesy

1) Users are expected to be reasonably courteous to each other and to assume good faith.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 19:17, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
  2. Dmcdevit·t 06:08, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
  3. Charles Matthews 19:46, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
  4. SimonP 17:00, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
  5. Jayjg (talk) 00:27, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
  6. ➥the Epopt 16:56, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Conflict of interest

2) Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, a guideline, requires that the interests of the encyclopedia come before the business interests of contributors. Editing by those who disrupt the editing process by aggressively and persistently advocating information favorable to their business interests may be appropriately limited. Application of such remedies should be proportional to the degree and type of disruption which has resulted.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 19:17, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
  2. Dmcdevit·t 06:08, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
  3. Charles Matthews 19:46, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
  4. SimonP 17:00, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
  5. Jayjg (talk) 00:27, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
  6. ➥the Epopt 16:56, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Experts with conflicts of interest

3) A significant portion of the experts in most fields are engaged in some business venture related to the field. It is desirable that such experts participate in Wikipedia, but important that both they and others appropriately deal with conflict of interest issues.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 19:17, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
  2. Dmcdevit·t 06:08, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
  3. Charles Matthews 19:46, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
  4. SimonP 17:00, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
  5. Jayjg (talk) 00:27, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
  6. ➥the Epopt 16:56, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Wikipedia is not a battleground

4) Wikipedia is not an appropriate venue for competitive business practices such as struggle for shelf space, see Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_battleground.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 19:17, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
  2. Dmcdevit·t 06:08, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
  3. Charles Matthews 19:46, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
  4. SimonP 17:00, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
  5. Jayjg (talk) 00:27, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
  6. ➥the Epopt 16:56, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Wikipedia is not a soapbox

5) Wikipedia is not an appropriate venue for social or political struggle; see Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 19:17, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
  2. Dmcdevit·t 06:08, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
  3. Charles Matthews 19:46, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
  4. SimonP 17:00, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
  5. Jayjg (talk) 00:27, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
  6. ➥the Epopt 16:56, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Neutral point of view

6) Wikipedia:Neutral point of view mandates that all significant points of view shall be fairly represented in articles.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 19:17, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
  2. Dmcdevit·t 06:08, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
  3. Charles Matthews 19:46, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
  4. SimonP 17:00, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
  5. Jayjg (talk) 00:27, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
  6. ➥the Epopt 16:56, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] "Consensus" never trumps NPOV

7) No agreement by Wikipedia editors, however rationalized, overrides Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 19:17, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
  2. In principle, yes. Of course, the question then becomes "So how do we determine NPOV?", and the answer is often unsatisfyingly "Consensus". Dmcdevit·t 06:08, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
  3. One of our eternal truths. Charles Matthews 19:46, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
  4. SimonP 17:00, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
  5. Jayjg (talk) 00:27, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
  6. ➥the Epopt 16:56, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Public issues

8) As a major website it is to be expected that users who encounter problems which relate to social or political issues will reach out to organizations who are concerned with those issues. In this instance, concern regarding gender bias either by a user who reaches out to an external organization or concern by an external organization which they try to express to Wikipedia users is both expected and welcome.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 19:17, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
  1. Wikipedia has no administration as such to appeal to. External organizations are no more welcome or unwelcome than normal editors working out the same POV issues as they. Dmcdevit·t 06:08, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
  2. SimonP 17:00, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
  3. ➥the Epopt 16:56, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Abstain:
  1. But see WP:COI, section on 'Campaigning'. Charles Matthews 19:46, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia is dynamic

9) Wikipedia is a wiki, subject to continual editing and correction as events unfold. As applied to the instant case, Wikipedia is able to adequately accommodate listing, in an appropriate article, of women opera composers. As public and critical reaction accumulates appropriate revisions can be made using the wiki process.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 19:17, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
  2. Dmcdevit·t 06:08, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
  3. Charles Matthews 19:46, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
  4. SimonP 17:00, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
  5. Jayjg (talk) 00:27, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
  6. ➥the Epopt 16:56, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Creative solutions and original research

10) Wikipedia is a reporter of existing knowledge. Creative solutions regarding how to better fulfill that project are welcomed; however, creative solutions about how to increase or refine knowledge violate a basic principle, Wikipedia:No original research. There is strong consensus supporting the principle that Wikipedia is a compendium of existing knowledge, not a vehicle for the advancement of knowledge.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 19:17, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
  2. Dmcdevit·t 06:08, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
  3. Charles Matthews 19:46, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
  4. SimonP 17:00, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
  5. Jayjg (talk) 00:27, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
  6. ➥the Epopt 16:56, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Notability

11) Articles regarding subjects which are not notable are subject to deletion.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 19:17, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
  2. Yes. Risks tautology, though, in that our operational (and least bad general) definition of 'notability' is what survives AfD. Charles Matthews 19:46, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
  3. Jayjg (talk) 00:27, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
  1. Still an ongoing debate. SimonP 17:00, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
  2. ➥the Epopt 16:56, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Abstain:
  1. A sticky issue, which I'm not so sure is relevant here, anyway. Dmcdevit·t 06:08, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Wikipedia is not an advertising venue

12) Wikipedia is not an appropriate venue for the advertisement of new or unrecognized artists or works.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 19:17, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
  2. Dmcdevit·t 06:08, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
  3. Charles Matthews 19:46, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
  4. SimonP 17:00, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
  5. Jayjg (talk) 00:27, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
  6. ➥the Epopt 16:56, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed principle}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed principle}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Proposed findings of fact

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Musik Fabrik

1) Musik Fabrik is a music publishing company. Its website is at http://www.classicalmusicnow.com/ Talk:List_of_major_opera_composers/Archive3#One_major_POV_issue_to_be_resolved.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 19:38, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
  2. Dmcdevit·t 06:08, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
  3. Charles Matthews 19:46, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
  4. SimonP 17:00, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
  5. Jayjg (talk) 00:27, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
  6. ➥the Epopt 16:56, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] User:Musikfabrik

2) Musikfabrik (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log), which has been banned as a multiuser, or role, account was used by a number of persons associated with Musik Fabrik, including Paul Wehage, the artistic director and main researcher at Musik Fabrik and Jean-Thierry Boisseau, [1] and Talk:List_of_major_opera_composers/Archive3#One_major_POV_issue_to_be_resolved.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 19:38, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
  2. Dmcdevit·t 06:08, 12 November 2006 (UTC}
  3. Charles Matthews 19:46, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
  4. SimonP 17:00, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
  5. ➥the Epopt 16:56, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Jean-Thierry Boisseau

3) Jean-Thierry Boisseau, an associate of Musik Fabrik, edits as Jean-Thierry Boisseau (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log). Until it was banned as a multiuser account he edited as Musikfabrik (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log), User:Jean-Thierry Boisseau and Talk:List_of_major_opera_composers/Archive3#One_major_POV_issue_to_be_resolved.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 19:38, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
  2. Dmcdevit·t 06:08, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
  3. Charles Matthews 19:46, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
  4. SimonP 17:00, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
  5. Jayjg (talk) 00:27, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
  6. ➥the Epopt 16:56, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Promotion of Musik Fabrik composers

4) Jean-Thierry Boisseau, editing as Musikfabrik has added composers [2] who are listed in the Musik Fabrik catalog Guitar catalog. User Musikfabrik was quite candid about use of Wikipedia articles to promote Musik Fabrik composers [3].

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 19:38, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
  2. Dmcdevit·t 06:08, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
  3. Charles Matthews 19:46, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
  4. SimonP 17:00, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
  5. Jayjg (talk) 00:27, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
  6. ➥the Epopt 16:56, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Failure of Jean-Thierry Boisseau to assume good faith

5) Jean-Thierry Boisseau has failed to assume good faith Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Jean-Thierry_Boisseau/Evidence#Jean-Thierry_Boisseau_is_extremely_quick_to_leap_to_accusations. See also this, third sentence and this.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 19:38, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
  2. Dmcdevit·t 06:08, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
  3. I see circumlocution, but I do see bad faith implied. Charles Matthews 19:46, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
  4. SimonP 17:00, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
  5. Jayjg (talk) 00:27, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
  6. ➥the Epopt 16:56, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Rudeness by Jean-Thierry_Boisseau

6) Jean-Thierry_Boisseau has been rude, Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Jean-Thierry_Boisseau/Evidence#User:Musikfabrik_was_rude.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 19:38, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
  2. There is quite a bit of brow-beating in the diffs. Charles Matthews 19:46, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
  3. Uncivil, but not horribly so. SimonP 17:00, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
  4. ➥the Epopt 16:56, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:
  1. Not sure how much of an issue this is. Dmcdevit·t 06:08, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
  2. Jayjg (talk) 00:27, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jean-Thierry Boisseau's superior tone

7) Jean-Thierry Boisseau has at times taken a superior tone in relation to other editors, Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Jean-Thierry_Boisseau/Evidence#Involved_professionals.2Finformed_amateurs. This may represent a more sophisticated approach, or not, but it irritated other editors.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 19:38, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
  2. Dmcdevit·t 06:08, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
  3. Charles Matthews 19:46, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
  4. SimonP 17:00, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
  5. Jayjg (talk) 00:27, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
  6. ➥the Epopt 16:56, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] The issue of gender bias

8) The issue of gender bias in the selection of lists of opera composers was vigorously raised by Jean-Thierry Boisseau by claiming, "it would seem to me to be quite clear that an sexist agenda at work here," Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Jean-Thierry_Boisseau#Statement_by_party_2, [4], Talk:List_of_major_opera_composers/Archive4#Not_so_fast.__There_is_obvious_POV_gender_bias_here, Talk:List_of_major_opera_composers/Archive3#NPOV.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 19:38, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
  2. Dmcdevit·t 06:08, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
  3. Charles Matthews 19:46, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
  4. SimonP 17:00, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
  5. Jayjg (talk) 00:27, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
  6. ➥the Epopt 16:56, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Women opera composers

9) It was determined by the editing process that there were no women opera composers "sufficiently notable to be included in [List of major opera composers]," Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Jean-Thierry_Boisseau#Statement_by_Party_5

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 19:38, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
  2. Dmcdevit·t 06:08, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
  3. Charles Matthews 19:46, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
  4. SimonP 17:00, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
  5. Jayjg (talk) 00:27, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
  6. ➥the Epopt 16:56, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Outside parties

10) Jean-Thierry Boisseau has invited the interest of outside organizations concerned with the advancement of women musicians [5].

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 19:38, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
  2. Dmcdevit·t 06:08, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
  3. Charles Matthews 19:46, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
  4. SimonP 17:00, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
  5. Jayjg (talk) 00:27, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
  6. ➥the Epopt 16:56, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Testing of limits by the crew from Musik Fabrik

11) At times suggestions by Jean-Thierry Boisseau and possibly others associated with Music Fabrik have bordered on creative solutions which involve original research [6]. This orientation, admirable in other contexts, differs from the pedestrian approach appropriate to an enterprise which merely reports existing knowledge. The cited effort was in response to this edit which emphasizes use of existing lists.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 19:38, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
  2. The real point seems to be an effort to move the goalposts on 'reliable sources'; it does pretty much work out as this says. Charles Matthews 20:02, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
  1. Not sure of the point of this. Jayjg (talk) 00:27, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
  2. ➥the Epopt 16:56, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Abstain:
  1. This doesn't seem to me to be clear from the evidence. Dmcdevit·t 06:08, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Other users

12) At times other users have been uncivil and failed to assume good faith.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 19:38, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
  1. Needs specifics and evidence. Dmcdevit·t 06:08, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
  2. ➥the Epopt 16:56, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Abstain:
  1. At the moment this is dangling. Charles Matthews 20:03, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
  2. SimonP 17:00, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
  3. Jayjg (talk) 00:27, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:


[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:


[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Support:
Oppose:
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] Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Users affiliated with Musik Fabrik

1) Jean-Thierry Boisseau and other users affiliated with Musik Fabrik are banned from editing any article dealing with artists or projects listed in their sales catalog. Further, they may not add any such artist or project to any article. There is no restriction on making suggestions or participating in discussions on talk pages.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 19:42, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
  2. Dmcdevit·t 06:08, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
  3. Charles Matthews 19:46, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
  4. SimonP 17:00, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
  5. Jayjg (talk) 00:27, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
  6. ➥the Epopt 16:56, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Jean-Thierry Boisseau placed on probation

2) Jean-Thierry Boisseau is placed on probation. He may be banned from any article or talk page which he disrupts. All bans to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Jean-Thierry_Boisseau#Log_of_blocks_and_bans.

Support:
  1. Dmcdevit·t 06:08, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
  2. Charles Matthews 19:46, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
  3. SimonP 17:00, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
  4. Jayjg (talk) 00:27, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
  5. ➥the Epopt 16:56, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
  1. I see no need for this. Fred Bauder 20:23, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Abstain:

[edit] Jean-Thierry Boisseau on civility parole

3) Jean-Thierry Boisseau is placed on standard civility parole for one year. If he makes any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, then he may be blocked for a short time of up to one week. After five such blocks, the maximum block time is increased to one year.

Support:
  1. Dmcdevit·t 06:08, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
  2. Charles Matthews 19:46, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
  1. I see no need for this. Fred Bauder 20:23, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
  2. SimonP 17:00, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
  3. Jayjg (talk) 00:27, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
  4. ➥the Epopt 16:56, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Abstain:

[edit] Proposed enforcement

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Enforcement by block

1) Any bans imposed under this decision may be enforced by blocking the offender for a period of up to a week. All blocks to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Jean-Thierry_Boisseau#Log_of_blocks_and_bans.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 19:44, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
  2. Dmcdevit·t 06:08, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
  3. Charles Matthews 19:46, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
  4. SimonP 17:00, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
  5. Jayjg (talk) 00:27, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
  6. ➥the Epopt 16:56, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Discussion by Arbitrators

[edit] General

[edit] Motion to close

[edit] Implementation notes

Clerks and Arbitrators should use this section to clarify their understanding of the final decision--at a minimum, a list of items that have passed. Additionally, a list of which remedies are conditional on others (for instance a ban that should only be implemented if a mentorship should fail), and so on. Arbitrators should not pass the motion until they are satisfied with the implementation notes.

Note that based on a majority of 5, the following findings of fact do not pass

11) Testing of limits by the crew from Musik Fabrik (2-2-1)
12) Other users (1/2/3)

With 2 abstentions, the majority on 6) Rudeness by Jean-Thierry_Boisseau (4-0-2) is 4, it passes.

Remedy 2) Jean-Thierry Boisseau placed on probation passes (5-1) but 3) Jean-Thierry Boisseau on civility parole fails (2-4). Thatcher131 19:57, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vote

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.

  1. move to close ➥the Epopt 16:56, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
  2. Close Fred Bauder 17:20, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
  3. Close. - SimonP 17:29, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
  4. Close. Dmcdevit·t 18:06, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
  5. Close. Charles Matthews 20:32, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/e/q/Wikipedia%7ERequests_for_arbitration_Jean-Thierry_Boisseau_Proposed_decision_8cfe.html"