Shortcut WP:ARBPIA4 Main case page (Talk) — Evidence (Talk) — Workshop (Talk) — Proposed decision (Talk) Case clerks: SQL (Talk) & Cthomas3 (Talk) Drafting arbitrators: Joe Roe (Talk) & Premeditated Chaos (Talk) & Worm That Turned (Talk)

Wikipedia Arbitration
About arbitration Talk Arbitration policy (CU/OS) Guide to arbitration Noticeboard + Talk Search archived proceedings Ban appeals Report
Open proceedings All open requests Case requests Clarification and Amendment requests Arbitrator motion requests Enforcement requests
Active sanctions Contentious topics (Log) General sanctions Editor sanctions
Arbitration Committee Discuss + Contact Members Procedures Elections Talk History Clerks + Talk Clerk procedures
Audit Talk Statistics Talk Reports (pre-2016)
Track related changes
t e

The Arbitration Committee has released its draft proposed decision for comment and workshopping in the workshop for this case.

Under no circumstances may this page be edited by anyone other than members of the Arbitration Committee or the clerks. Please submit comments on the proposed decision in your own section on the talk page.

Arbitrators may place proposed motions affecting the case in this section for voting. Typical motions might be to close or dismiss a case without a full decision (a reason should normally be given). Suggestions by the parties or other non-arbitrators for motions or other requests should be placed on the /Workshop page for consideration and discussion.

Motions require an absolute majority of all active, unrecused arbitrators (same as the final decision). See Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures#Motions to dismiss.

Template

1) {text of proposed motion}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

A temporary injunction is a directive from the Arbitration Committee that parties to the case, or other editors notified of the injunction, do or refrain from doing something while the case is pending. It can also be used to impose temporary sanctions (such as discretionary sanctions) or restrictions on an article or topic. Suggestions by the parties or other non-arbitrators for motions or other requests should be placed on the /Workshop page for consideration and discussion.

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, unless there are at least four votes to implement immediately. See Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures#Passing of temporary injunctions.

Template

1) {text of proposed orders}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Proposed final decision

Jurisdiction of the Arbitration Committee

1) The Committee retains jurisdiction over prior cases, in this instance, the three previous cases related to Palestine-Israel articles: Palestine-Israel articles, West Bank - Judea and Samaria, and Palestine-Israel articles 3.

Support:

1.  ■ 10:28, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
   ]
2. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:08, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
3. Katie^talk 22:45, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
4. Worm^TT(talk) 08:34, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
5. – Joe (talk) 10:13, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
6. Opabinia regalis (talk) 10:37, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Purpose of Wikipedia

2) The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among contributors. Use of the site for other purposes, such as advocacy or propaganda or furtherance of outside conflicts is prohibited. Contributors whose actions are detrimental to that goal may be asked to refrain from them, even when these actions are undertaken in good faith.

Support:

1.  ■ 10:28, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
   ]
2. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:08, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
3. Katie^talk 22:45, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
4. Worm^TT(talk) 08:34, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
5. – Joe (talk) 10:13, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
6. Opabinia regalis (talk) 10:37, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Role of the Arbitration Committee

3) It is not the role of the Arbitration Committee to settle good-faith content disputes among editors.

Support:

1.  ■ 10:28, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
   ]
2. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:08, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
3. Katie^talk 22:45, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
4. Worm^TT(talk) 08:34, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
5. – Joe (talk) 10:13, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
6. Opabinia regalis (talk) 10:37, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Neutrality and sources

4) All Wikipedia articles must be written from a

.

Support:

1.  ■ 10:28, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
   ]
2. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:08, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
3. Katie^talk 22:45, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
4. Worm^TT(talk) 08:34, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
5. – Joe (talk) 10:13, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
6. Opabinia regalis (talk) 10:37, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Single purpose accounts

5) Editors should contribute from a neutral point of view.

can create the impression that an editor is following their own agenda with a non-neutral focus on a single topic. Editors operating such an account should take care to ensure that their edits are compatible with the project's broader goal of writing an encyclopaedia.

Support:

1.  ■ 10:28, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
   ]
2. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:08, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
3. Katie^talk 22:45, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
4. Worm^TT(talk) 08:34, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
5. – Joe (talk) 10:13, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
6. Opabinia regalis (talk) 10:37, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Sockpuppetry

6) The

is one editor, one account, though there are several legitimate uses of an alternate account. The creation or use of an additional account to conceal an editing history, to evade a block or a site ban, or to deceive the community, is prohibited. Sockpuppet accounts that are not publicly disclosed are not to be used in discussions internal to the project.

Support:

1.  ■ 10:28, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
   ]
2. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:08, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
3. Katie^talk 22:45, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
4. Worm^TT(talk) 08:34, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
5. – Joe (talk) 10:13, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
6. Opabinia regalis (talk) 10:37, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Tendentious editing

7) Users who disrupt the editing of articles by engaging in sustained aggressive point-of-view editing and edit-warring may be banned from the affected articles, or in extreme cases from the site, either by community consensus or by the Arbitration Committee.

Support:

1.  ■ 10:28, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
   ]
2. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:08, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
3. Katie^talk 22:45, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
4. Worm^TT(talk) 08:34, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
5. – Joe (talk) 10:13, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
6. Opabinia regalis (talk) 10:37, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

At wit's end

8) In cases where all reasonable attempts to control the spread of disruption arising from long-term disputes have failed, the Committee may be forced to adopt seemingly draconian measures as a last resort for preventing further damage to the encyclopedia.

Support:

1. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:08, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
2. I absolutely believe this should remain here, largely from the previous cases. Worm^TT(talk) 08:34, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
3. Not a fan of the wording, but I support the sentiment (extreme disruption can warrant extreme sanctions) and, as WTT points out, it's inherited from previous cases. – Joe (talk) 10:13, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
4. Per WTT. Opabinia regalis (talk) 10:37, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
5. Per Joe. Katie^talk 10:41, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
6.  ■ 12:22, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
   ]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

I will say that this principle does feel slightly out of place, partially because we're all so used to the ARBPIA sanctions and partially because, actually, the area isn't as bad as it used to be because of those sanctions. Do we return from the end of our wit? I feel that, no, these sanctions need to remain in place, and as noted in a conversation below, ARBPIA is still the most heavily regulated area on Wikipedia. We need to have a principle to explain that - we've clean slated the cases, people will be referring to this one. This principle reflects why ARBPIA is more heavily regulated than any other area. I know that Arbcom is where the community is meant to go when it's at it's wit's end - but I think this principle should only be pulled out rarely, when no other options are presenting themselves. Worm^TT(talk) 08:58, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Locus of the dispute

1) This case relates to behavioral issues occurring around articles relating to the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. This area has been the subject of three previous arbitration cases, the Palestine-Israel articles case, West Bank - Judea and Samaria case and Palestine-Israel articles 3 case.

Support:

1.  ■ 10:28, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
   ]
2. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:15, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
3. Katie^talk 22:47, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
4. Worm^TT(talk) 08:35, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
5. – Joe (talk) 10:13, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
6. Opabinia regalis (talk) 10:37, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Confusion over remedies

2) Editors working in the topic area have expressed concern that the rules governing editing and sanctions for pages relating to the Palestine-Israel conflict (summarized at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Palestine-Israel articles) have become overly complicated and confusing, making them difficult to enforce effectively.

Support:

1.  ■ 10:28, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
   ]
2. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:15, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
3. Katie^talk 22:47, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
4. Worm^TT(talk) 08:35, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
5. – Joe (talk) 10:13, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
6. Opabinia regalis (talk) 10:37, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Scope of sanctions

3) Drawing a distinction between pages "broadly construed" and "reasonably construed" as relating to the Palestine-Israel conflict has been unintuitive and unhelpful, particularly for pages where only a portion of the content is relevant. (Ymblanter's evidence, paragraph 3, and [1])

Support:

1. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:15, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
2. In this instance, yes. Katie^talk 22:47, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
3. This is what we have been told, and is a reasonable concern. Worm^TT(talk) 08:35, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
4. – Joe (talk) 10:13, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
5. Opabinia regalis (talk) 10:37, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
6.  ■ 12:23, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
   ]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

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.

Condensing of remedies

1) For the sake of easy referencing, the following existing remedies are vacated (with the intention of replacing them elsewhere in this decision):

ARBPIA:

• Editors reminded
• Editors counseled
• Standard discretionary sanctions (for "All Arab-Israeli conflict-related pages")

ARBPIA2:

• Area of conflict
• Lifting of restrictions
• Suspension of restrictions

ARBPIA3:

• General Prohibition (of users not "extended confirmed")
• Sanctions available

Existing enforcement decisions relying upon these remedies are not vacated and will be appealable as if this remedy had not carried.

Support:

1.  ■ 09:56, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
   ]
2. I'm fine with the "no-wikilawyer" clause. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:56, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
3. I'm okay with it too. Katie^talk 22:57, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
4. I think the "no-wikilawyers" additions is fine. I'd like to think it wouldn't be necessary, but I've just supported "at wit's end". Worm^TT(talk) 08:44, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
5. – Joe (talk) 10:20, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
6. Opabinia regalis (talk) 10:37, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

1. To serve as a "go away wikilawyers" clause, and to genuinely help users appealing an existing decision, I have added Existing enforcement decisions relying upon these remedies are not vacated and will be appealable as if this remedy had not carried. That text was not included in the draft PD or workshop, but should be useful.
    ■ 09:56, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
   ]

Editors reminded

2) 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 making use of dispute resolution where necessary.

Wikipedia cannot resolve the dispute between the Israeli and Palestinian people or any other real-world 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 real-life conflict parties. The contributions of all good-faith editors on these articles who contribute with this goal in mind are appreciated.

Support:

1.  ■ 09:58, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
   ]
2. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:56, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
3. Katie^talk 22:57, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
4. Cleaning the previous cases left us with the option of dropping the general reminder remedies - I think that would be a poor idea, I know they are rarely looked out, but they are good advice, especially in the area. Worm^TT(talk) 08:44, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
5. I see Joe's point, but I think on balance these have their uses. Opabinia regalis (talk) 10:37, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

1. I'd prefer to leave the reminders out – they don't actually do anything, and in this fourth iteration of ARBPIA our priority should be making the decision as concise as possible. – Joe (talk) 10:20, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Comments:

Editors counselled

3) 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 counselled that they may sometimes need or wish to step away temporarily from that article or subject area. Sometimes, editors in this position may wish to 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 that they become 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:

1.  ■ 10:00, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
   ]
2. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:56, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
3. Katie^talk 22:57, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
4. per my comments in remedy 2 Worm^TT(talk) 08:44, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
5. Opabinia regalis (talk) 10:37, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

1. Per above.

Abstain:

Comments:

Definition of the "area of conflict"

4) For the purposes of editing restrictions in the ARBPIA topic area, the "area of conflict" shall be defined as encompassing

Support:

1.  ■ 10:02, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
   ]
2. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:56, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
3. Katie^talk 22:57, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
4. I know there was some back and forth over what constitutes "content" - but this is a definition for the purposes of ARBPIA and will hopefully clarify things going forward. Worm^TT(talk) 08:44, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
5. – Joe (talk) 10:20, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
6. Opabinia regalis (talk) 10:37, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

ARBPIA General Sanctions

5) The following set of sanctions will be considered the "ARBPIA General Sanctions".

Support:

1.  ■ 10:10, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
   ]
2. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:56, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
3. Katie^talk 22:57, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
4. Since these are applied often as a whole, naming them as a single unit makes sense. Worm^TT(talk) 08:44, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
5. This will help simplify enforcement. – Joe (talk) 10:20, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
6. Opabinia regalis (talk) 10:37, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Standing sanctions upon primary articles

6) All primary articles will be subject to the ARBPIA General Sanctions. {{

for someone with permissions to create the edit notice.

Support:

1.  ■ 10:15, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
   ]
2. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:56, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
3. Katie^talk 22:57, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
4. Worm^TT(talk) 08:44, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
5. – Joe (talk) 10:20, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
6. Opabinia regalis (talk) 10:37, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

1. Placing my conversation with
    ■ 10:15, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
   ]

General sanctions upon related content

7) All edits made to related content (i.e. pages not otherwise related to the area of conflict) will be subject to ARBPIA General Sanctions.

When disruptive edits are being made to such content, any editor may invoke ARBPIA General Sanctions for that content. They must place {{

edit request

for someone with permissions to create the edit notice.

Editors should apply the ARBPIA General Sanctions templates to related content only when disruption creates a need for additional administrative tools. Administrators should only utilize the ARBPIA General Sanctions to reduce disruption caused by edits related to the conflict area. Problematic edits made to unrelated content on the same page should be handled by normal administrative means.

Support:

1.  ■ 10:16, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
   ]
2. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:56, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
3. Katie^talk 22:57, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
4. With a request to a clever bod to to the template work. Come to me afterwards and I'll drop you a barnstar... I can't remember the last time I gave one of them out. Worm^TT(talk) 08:44, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
5. – Joe (talk) 10:20, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
6. Opabinia regalis (talk) 10:37, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Belatedly I've realized this might be better handled with as a parameter of {{ArbCom Arab-Israeli editnotice}}, if that's technically feasible, rather than a whole new template set. Or maybe a rewrite of the template so it applies generically to content. Either way, it wouldn't change the rest of the remedy, so I'm still a support, the technical details just need to be worked out. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:56, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're probably right, and I don't want to hold up the whole decision over it. Katie^talk 22:57, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've tweaked it so it just says to use the regular template. Any technicalities in making the template work on a switchable basis or simply rewriting it can be done in the future without altering the remedy. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:42, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disputes about scope of conflict area

8) In the case of disputes regarding whether or not an article is a primary article, or whether a portion of content is related to ARBPIA, editors should use normal dispute resolution methods to come to a consensus.

Support:

1.  ■ 10:18, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
   ]
2. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:56, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
3. Katie^talk 22:57, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
4. Worm^TT(talk) 08:44, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
5. – Joe (talk) 10:20, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
6. Opabinia regalis (talk) 10:37, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Available sanctions

9) Uninvolved administrators are encouraged to monitor the articles covered by discretionary sanctions in the original Palestine-Israel case to ensure compliance. To assist in this, administrators are reminded that:

Support:

1.  ■ 10:19, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
   ]
2. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:56, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
3. Don't lose track of the gentle cleaning agents already in the mop bucket before using steel wool and caustic. Katie^talk 22:57, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
4. I wouldn't call these gentle Katie, but I do agree your point. Worm^TT(talk) 08:44, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
5. – Joe (talk) 10:20, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
6. Opabinia regalis (talk) 10:37, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Enforcement of restrictions

0) Should any user subject to a restriction in this case violate that restriction, that user may be blocked, initially for up to one month, and then with blocks increasing in duration to a maximum of one year.

In accordance with the procedure for the standard enforcement provision adopted 3 May 2014, this provision did not require a vote.

Appeals and modifications

In accordance with the procedure for the standard appeals and modifications provision adopted 3 May 2014, this provision did not require a vote.

Comments:

General

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 to close the case until they are satisfied with the implementation notes.

These notes were last updated by – bradv🍁 14:31, 17 December 2019 (UTC); the last edit to this page was on 20:04, 4 January 2021 (UTC) by SporkBot.[reply]

Proposed Principles
Number	Proposal Name	Support	Oppose	Abstain	Status	Support needed	Notes
1	Jurisdiction of the Arbitration Committee	6	0	0		·
2	Purpose of Wikipedia	6	0	0		·
3	Role of the Arbitration Committee	6	0	0		·
4	Neutrality and sources	6	0	0		·
5	Single purpose accounts	6	0	0		·
6	Sockpuppetry	6	0	0		·
7	Tendentious editing	6	0	0		·
8	At wit's end	6	0	0		·
Proposed Findings of Fact
Number	Proposal Name	Support	Oppose	Abstain	Status	Support needed	Notes
1	Locus of the dispute	6	0	0		·
2	Confusion over remedies	6	0	0		·
3	Scope of sanctions	6	0	0		·
Proposed Remedies
Number	Proposal Name	Support	Oppose	Abstain	Status	Support needed	Notes
1	Condensing of remedies	6	0	1		·
2	Editors reminded	5	1	0		·
3	Editors counselled	5	1	0		·
4	Definition of the "area of conflict"	6	0	0		·
5	ARBPIA General Sanctions	6	0	0		·
6	Standing sanctions upon primary articles	6	0	1		·
7	General sanctions upon related content	6	0	0		·
8	Disputes about scope of conflict area	6	0	0		·
9	Available sanctions	6	0	0		·
Proposed Enforcement Provisions
Number	Proposal Name	Support	Oppose	Abstain	Status	Support needed	Notes
0	Enforcement of restrictions	0	0	0		·	Passes by default
0	Appeals and modifications	0	0	0		·	Passes by default

Notes

Vote

Important: Please ask the case clerk to author the implementation notes before initiating a motion to close, so that the final decision is clear.

Four net "support" votes (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support") or an absolute majority are needed to close the case. The Clerks will close the case 24 hours after the fourth net support vote has been cast, unless an absolute majority of arbitrators vote to fast-track the close.

Support

1. As everything is passing, I think we're good to close this. Ping
   AGK in case they want to vote on the things they've missed in the next 24 hours. Worm^TT(talk) 10:42, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
   ]
2. Katie^talk 11:51, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
3.  ■ 12:26, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
   ]
4. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 18:45, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Comments