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. 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. Only Arbitrators or Clerks should edit this page; non-Arbitrators may comment on the talk page.

For this case, there are 13 active Arbitrators, so 7 votes are a majority.

Motions and requests by the parties

Place those on /Workshop. Motions which are accepted for consideration and which require a vote will be placed here by the Arbitrators for voting.
Motions have the same majority for passage as the final decision.

Template

1) {text of proposed motion}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

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.

Template

1) {text of proposed orders}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Proposed final decision

Proposed principles

Purpose of Wikipedia

1) Wikipedia is a project to create a neutral encyclopedia. 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.

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Decorum

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, trolling, harassment, disruptive point-making, and gaming the system, is prohibited.

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Editorial process

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.

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Dispute resolution

4) Users should not respond to inappropriate behavior in kind, or engage in sustained editorial conflict or unbridled criticism across different forums. Editors who have genuine grievances against others are expected to avail themselves of the dispute resolution mechanism.

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Template

5) {text of proposed principle}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Proposed findings of fact

Area of conflict

1) The disputes presented in this case, while focusing specifically on issues related to Palestinian-Israeli conflict, are part of a broader set of conflicts prevalent over the entire range of articles concerning the Arab-Israeli conflict (see, in particular, the prior Arbitration cases regarding Allegations of apartheid, PalestineRemembered, Deir Yassin massacre, Israel-Lebanon, Israeli apartheid, Zeq, and Yuber). Many of these conflicts are grounded in matters external to the project; deep-seated and long-standing real world conflicts between the peoples of Palestine and Israel have been transferred to Wikipedia. The area of conflict in this case shall be considered to be the entire set of Arab-Israeli conflict-related articles, broadly interpreted.

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Choice of approach

2) Whilst a number of users have edited in a problematic manner, and a number of serious concerns are raised at /Evidence, the dispute at this time will be better addressed by a general remedy applicable to the area of conflict as a whole, which can then be applied by administrators in future.

Support:

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 02:09, 17 January 2008 (UTC) Explains why we are not looking at individual's conduct here at this time.[reply]
Paul August ☎ 23:40, 17 January 2008 (UTC) It is good to explain ourselves to the community. We generally don't do as good a job of this as we might.[reply]

Oppose:

Findings of fact should not be needlessly self-referential; and it can be assumed that we believe our approach to be the correct one for addressing the dispute in every case. Kirill 05:21, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Per Kirill. Sam Blacketer (talk) 11:16, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That we are choosing general remedies rather than specific sanctions is an important thing to mention, but I think it would be done better by a comment accompanying the final decision rather than as a finding of fact. bainer (talk) 00:28, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Per Bainer. James F. (talk) 07:41, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Per Paul August, Thebainer, James, this is now included as a note under general comments. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 13:46, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

The best approach to particular cases may vary on a case-by-case basis. This will often be a true statement, but not in every situation. Newyorkbrad (talk) 08:29, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Discretionary sanctions

1) Any uninvolved administrator may, on their own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict if that editor fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics; restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project. Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to this decision.

Support:

Kirill 02:58, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Second choice, prefer the slight refinements in 1.1. (I apologize to Kirill for not having gotten these thoughts onto the workshop before he drafted this decision.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:19, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Second choice pending clarifications re 1.1 below. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 15:22, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2nd choice. FloNight (talk) 17:00, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 17:30, 16 January 2008 (UTC) Second choice now, prefer 1.1.[reply]
2nd choice. jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 17:45, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

In favour of 1.1. James F. (talk) 20:35, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Go with 1.1. Sam Blacketer (talk) 11:27, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The extra observations in 1.1 are so fundamental that they really should not need to be repeated in this way, but it bears doing so in this situation. bainer (talk) 00:28, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Discretionary sanctions

1.1) Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics; restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project.

Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to this decision; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines.

In determining whether to impose sanctions on a given user and which sanctions to impose, administrators should use their judgment and balance the need to assume good faith and avoid biting genuinely inexperienced editors, and the desire to allow responsible contributors maximum freedom to edit, with the need to reduce edit-warring and misuse of Wikipedia as a battleground, so as to create an acceptable collaborative editing environment even on our most contentious articles. Editors wishing to edit in these areas are advised to edit carefully, to adopt Wikipedia's communal approaches (including appropriate conduct, dispute resolution, neutral point of view, no original research and verifiability) in their editing, and to amend behaviors that are deemed to be of concern by administrators. An editor unable or unwilling to do so may wish to restrict their editing to other topics, in order to avoid sanctions.

Support:

First choice. The wording may need to be tweaked a bit. The "discretionary sanction" remedies that have became a more regular feature of our decisions in these types of disputes effectively delegate some of this committee's authority to impose remedies on participants to individual administrators. I think it is worthwhile to provide the admins who will enforce these remedies, and whose monitoring of some of our most bitterly contentious articles is appreciated by the committee, with a reminder of some of the factors they should take into consideration in their decision-making in this important area. Editors active on these types of articles are entitled to the same presumption of good faith, freedom from biting, and application of other site policies as other editors. We need to work with our administrators to address the serious problems in these contentious areas without becoming too quick to impose restrictions on editors who do not require them. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:19, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
First choice; copyedited a bit. Kirill 04:28, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 13:15, 16 January 2008 (UTC) First choice (as copyedited) iff it also states what is expected of users too. Setting out basics for user expectations as well as administrators is needed even though it should be obvious. ("Users expected to act well and amend conduct if there are admin concerns. If unable or unwilling, you may wish to avoid the topic" is the flip side of the issue and constitutes fair warning given severe possible sanctions.)[reply]
FloNight (talk) 17:00, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
First. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 17:45, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
James F. (talk) 20:35, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sam Blacketer (talk) 11:27, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Paul August ☎ 23:41, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Blnguyen (bananabucket) 00:09, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
bainer (talk) 00:28, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 14:40, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

~~In this particular case WP:BITE can be tricky since we cannot disregard the use of sockpuppets. I am not satisfied with it.~~ FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 15:22, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would adding "genuinely" before "inexperienced editors" address your concern? Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:17, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That would definitely help. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 18:27, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Added, and also added 1/ "judgement" which is critical here -- recognizing that many decisions will have to be made on judgement and "balance of best decision". Administrators should be reminded that judgement is the core of their role, if we're clarifying basics. And 2/ what is expected of users, too (see above). FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 13:15, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Appeal of discretionary sanctions

2) Discretionary sanctions imposed under the provisions of this decision may be appealed to the imposing administrator, the appropriate administrators' noticeboard (currently WP:AE), or the Committee. Administrators are cautioned not to reverse such sanctions without familiarizing themselves with the full facts of the matter and engaging in extensive discussion and consensus-building at the administrators' noticeboard or another suitable on-wiki venue. The Committee will consider appropriate remedies including suspension or revocation of adminship in the event of violations.

Support:

Kirill 02:58, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As per discussion on the pending Armenia-Azerbaijan motion, it may be worthwhile to clarify on which particular noticeboard any appeal is to be heard. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:19, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support it but i prefer to see appeals being centralized (i.e. ArbEnf or directly to the ArbCom). Since this case is being/would be dealt with by a small group of admins AN/I would not be an appropriate venue i believe. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 15:22, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
FloNight (talk) 17:00, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But I suggest "the appropriate noticeboard (currently AN)" might work better, so we don't have to fuss with nitpickers if (for example) a separate noticeboard becomes necessary. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 17:45, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
James F. (talk) 20:35, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 02:09, 17 January 2008 (UTC) Do we mean AN, ANI, or AE? Clarify. (AE preferred)[reply]
As on the motion, I think appeals should be directed to WP:AE. The remedy for this board not getting enough admin visitors is to give it a clear role and more to do. Debates will get lost at AN and ANI. Sam Blacketer (talk) 11:27, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Paul August ☎ 23:47, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Blnguyen (bananabucket) 00:09, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have no preference for either AN or AE, but it would be useful to pick one or the other. AE might be better for traffic reasons. --bainer (talk) 00:28, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Edited to specify AE, using jpgordon's form of wording. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 13:40, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Working group

3) The Committee shall convene a working group, composed of experienced Wikipedians in good standing, and task it with developing a comprehensive set of recommendations for resolving the pervasive problem of intractable disputes centered around national, ethnic, and cultural areas of conflict. The membership, structure, and procedures of the group shall be subject to the approval of the Committee. The working group shall be free to develop recommendations of any form, including those requiring Committee action and those requiring community adoption of new or changed policies, at its discretion. The group shall be appointed within two weeks from the closure of this case, and shall present its recommendations to the Committee no later than six months from the date of its inception.

Support:

Kirill 02:58, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:19, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
FloNight (talk) 17:00, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 17:25, 16 January 2008 (UTC) As below, and noting 6 months is a long time, but may be needed; we don't yet know the scale of the job.[reply]
jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 17:47, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
James F. (talk) 20:35, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note this is not a 'content committee'. Sam Blacketer (talk) 11:27, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Active supervision of structured efforts to resolve content disputes (as opposed to the Committee's typical ex post facto involvement) is an excellent method for dealing with intractable content questions. --bainer (talk) 00:28, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Paul August ☎ 00:46, 18 January 2008 (UTC) Willing to give this a try.[reply]
FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 14:40, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

~~The inception's date is not being explicitly declared. The working group can take forever to be agreed upon.~~ -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 15:22, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would inserting "be appointed within two weeks from the closure of this case and" before "present its recommendations" address your concern? Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:16, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2 weeks seems very reasonable and realistic. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 18:25, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, added. Kirill 01:30, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Comment:

Agree with this, but noting an aspect not addressed before I can sign off the wording - "and task it with developing a comprehensive set of recommendations under guidelines to be provided, for resolving the pervasive problem". Or "The membership, structure and processes of the group shall be subject to the approval of the Committee." We need to set brief guidelines, even if they are just "stages we want to see completed before moving on to the next", or our agreement on working approaches and consultation practices. For example before moving on to "recommendations" I'd want to understand within say 1-2 months, how exactly the members have agreed they see the issue, what areas are agreed and which are not, and therefore how they will approach their recommendations. That's a simple example. Given the seriousness of the task, I'd like us to at least help them by putting together some guidelines for their work rather than just "theres a bunch of people, a group structure, and 6 months". FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 13:50, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Added. Kirill 16:16, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, now okay by me. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 17:27, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Editors reminded

4) Editors are reminded that when editing in subject areas of bitter and long-standing real-world conflict, it is all the more important to comply with Wikipedia policies such as assuming good faith of all editors including those on the other side of the real-world dispute, writing with a neutral point of view, remaining civil and avoiding personal attacks, utilizing reliable sources for contentious or disputed assertions, and resorting to dispute resolution where necessary. Wikipedia cannot solve the dispute between the Israeli and Palestinian people or any other real-world ethnic conflict. What Wikipedia can do is aspire to provide neutral, encyclopedic coverage about the areas of dispute and the peoples involved in it, which may lead to a broader understanding of the issues and the positions of all parties to the conflict. The contributions of all good-faith editors on these articles who contribute with this goal in mind are appreciated.

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Editors counseled

5) Editors who find it difficult to edit a particular article or topic from a neutral point of view and adhere to other Wikipedia policies are counseled that they may sometimes need or wish to step away temporarily from that article or subject area. Sometimes, editors in this position may wish devote some of their knowledge, interest, and effort to creating or editing other articles that may relate to the same broad subject-matter as the dispute, but are less immediately contentious. For example, an editor whose ethnicity, cultural heritage, or personal interests relate to Side X and who finds himself caught up in edit-warring on an article about a recent war between Side X and Side Y, may wish to disengage from that article for a time and instead focus on a different aspect of the history, civilization, and cultural heritage of Side X.

Support:

Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:19, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Kirill 04:28, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Though i prefer replacing "Country" with "Background" or something similar. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 15:22, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No objection to that or any other similar change. Please feel free to copyedit. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:15, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks NYB. I think 'Side' fits better there. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 18:23, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
FloNight (talk) 17:00, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 17:47, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
James F. (talk) 20:35, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 02:09, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sam Blacketer (talk) 11:27, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
bainer (talk) 00:28, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Paul August ☎ 00:45, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Template

6) {text of proposed remedy}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Proposed enforcement

Logging of sanctions

1) All sanctions imposed under the provisions of this decision are to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles#Log of blocks and bans.

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Uninvolved administrators

2) For the purpose of imposing sanctions under the provisions of this case, an administrator will be considered "uninvolved" if he or she has not previously participated in any content disputes on articles in the area of conflict. Enforcing the provisions of this decision will not be considered to be participation in a dispute. Any doubt regarding whether an administrator qualifies under this definition is to be treated as any other appeal of discretionary sanctions.

Support:

Kirill 02:58, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:19, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For this case. In general, I think that this is a good definition but there may be different situations when different criteria should be used. FloNight (talk) 17:05, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 17:47, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
James F. (talk) 20:35, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Blnguyen (bananabucket) 00:09, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As per FloNight, this is fine here, though I can foresee adopting different standards to suit particular situations. FT2's modifications below may be better suited to cases involving a narrower subject area. --bainer (talk) 00:28, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In the absence of anything more specific, support. Sam Blacketer (talk) 20:46, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Paul August ☎ 00:59, 18 January 2008 (UTC) Oppose for now. I think this may need more thought, per discussions on talk page.[reply]
Still unclear. Oppose. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 14:40, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

~~This is an essential point and therefore it needs more clarifications. For now i am abstaining pending discussions at the Workshop and users' talk pages.~~ -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 15:22, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 02:09, 17 January 2008 (UTC) We can do better, but failing which support as is. Stricter criteria for neutrality may be good?[reply]

Comment:

Proposed: "An administrator will be considered "involved" if he or she has previously edited in a significant manner, or participated in a content dispute or deletion debate, related to the area of conflict. Giving evidence to, or enforcing the provisions of, this or a previous arbitration decision will not be considered to be participation in a dispute, nor will trivial and non-contentious participation (such as spelling, markup, and link editing), or comments and actions of a purely administrative nature."

Any better? Its more how I'm thinking, but probably still needs refining. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 02:09, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What I would also want to see is a way in which an admin who takes action in good faith, having forgotten a previous content edit within the area of conflict, can acknowledge and withdraw from admin involvement, leave their actions to be reassessed, without any further ramifications. It would be bad if this opened the way to a witchhunt of all admins to see where they stand on Israel/Palestine. Sam Blacketer (talk) 11:32, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Take this up another time though? FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 13:32, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template

3) {text of proposed enforcement}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Discussion by Arbitrators

Whilst a number of users have edited in a problematic manner, and a number of serious concerns are raised at /Evidence, it is the view of arbitrators that the dispute at this time will be better addressed by a general remedy applicable to the area of conflict as a whole, which can then be applied by administrators in future. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 13:44, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

General

Passing at closing:
- Proposed principles 1, 2, 3, 4;
- Proposed finding 1; and
- Proposed remedy 1.1, 2, 3, 4, 5 — Rlevse • Talk • 01:27, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Motion to close

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.

Principles 1-4, finding of fact 1, remedies 1.1 and 2-5, and enforcement 1 and 2 currently passing. Daniel (talk) 02:18, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Close; everything passes. Kirill 02:10, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Close. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 03:27, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Close. --bainer (talk) 06:10, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Close. James F. (talk) 07:41, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Close. FloNight (talk) 13:48, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Close. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 15:02, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Close. Sam Blacketer (talk) 20:46, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles/Proposed decision

Contents

Motions and requests by the parties

Template

Proposed temporary injunctions

Template

Proposed final decision

Proposed principles

Purpose of Wikipedia

Decorum

Editorial process

Dispute resolution

Template

Proposed findings of fact

Area of conflict

Choice of approach

Proposed remedies

Discretionary sanctions

Discretionary sanctions

Appeal of discretionary sanctions

Working group

Editors reminded

Editors counseled

Template

Proposed enforcement

Logging of sanctions

Uninvolved administrators

Template

Discussion by Arbitrators

General

Motion to close

Implementation notes

Vote