Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard

Arbitration​Committee

This noticeboard is for announcements and statements made by the Arbitration Committee. Only members of the Arbitration Committee or the Committee's Clerks may post on this page, but all editors are encouraged to comment on the talk page.

Announcement archives: 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 · 6 · 7

Arbitration motion regarding User:Rodhullandemu

Per a motion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Rodhullandemu:

[T]he 26 February 2011 motion posted to the Arbitration Committee noticeboard ("Rodhullandemu's administrator status is revoked. He may apply for adminship at a future date by the usual means to the community.") is rescinded and replaced with a temporary injunction suspending Rodhullandemu's administrative privileges for the duration of the case [opened 7 March 2011].

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Tiptoety ^talk 04:37, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Archived discussion

Arbitration motion regarding Ebionites 2

Per an interim motion:

The request for arbitration is accepted (titled Ebionites 2). However, the case will be held in abeyance for four weeks to allow mediation to proceed. After four weeks, or earlier if the mediation is closed as unsuccessful, the Committee will reexamine the situation to determine whether the case will proceed or be dismissed.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Dougweller (talk) 14:04, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Archived discussion

Audit Subcommittee appointments: Invitation to comment on candidates

The Arbitration Committee is seeking to appoint at least three non-arbitrator members to the Audit Subcommittee, and is now seeking comments from the community regarding the candidates who have volunteered for this role.

Interested parties are invited to review the appointments page containing the nomination statements supplied by the candidates and their answers to a few standard questions. Community members may also pose additional questions and submit comments about the candidates on the individual nomination subpages or privately via email to arbcom-en-blists.wikimedia.org.

Following the consultation phase, the committee will take into account the answers provided by the candidates to the questions and the comments offered by the community (both publicly and privately) along with any other relevant factors before making a final decision regarding appointments.

The consultation phase is scheduled to end 23:59, 21 March 2011 (UTC), and the appointments are scheduled to be announced by 31 March 2011.

For the Arbitration Committee, –xeno^talk 00:00, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Archived discussion

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kehrli 2 closed

An arbitration case regarding Kehrli (talk · contribs) has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedy has been enacted:

• Kehrli (talk · contribs) is indefinitely topic banned from metrology-related articles, broadly defined, including talk pages and discussions.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 17:21, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Archived discussion

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Monty Hall problem closed

An arbitration case regarding Monty Hall problem has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following is a summary of the sanctions that were enacted:

• Standard discretionary sanctions are enacted for all articles related to Monty Hall problem (broadly interpreted)
• Glkanter is banned from Wikipedia for one year, and is further subject to an indefinite topic ban on subjects related to the Monty Hall Problem.
• Nijdam is topic banned from the subject of the Monty Hall problem for a period of one year.
• Rick Block is restricted to 1RR on the Monty Hall article for a period of one year.

For the Arbitration Committee, NW (Talk) 00:48, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Archived discussion

Advanced permissions and inactivity

Access to CheckUser and Oversight permissions is given sparingly. The permissions reflect the high trust placed in the holder but are not granted in perpetuity and holders are expected to use them regularly for the benefit of the project.

Accordingly, the minimum activity level for each tool (based on the preceding three months' activity) shall be five logged actions, including at least one community-requested logged action. Examples of community-requested actions include suppression requests via the oversight-en-wp OTRS queue; CheckUser requests through Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations, those stemming from account creation requests, those made in response to threads at an administrative noticeboard, or posted on a CheckUser's personal user talk page. These activity requirements do not apply to: (a) sitting members of the Arbitration Committee; (b) holders using the permissions for audit purposes (such as members of the Audit Subcommittee); or (c) holders who have temporarily relinquished access, including CheckUsers or Oversighters who accept appointment to the Ombudsman Commission.

Holders of the permissions are also expected to:

1. Remain active on the English Wikipedia unless they have previously notified the Arbitration Committee of a significant expected absence and its likely duration.
2. Consider temporarily relinquishing their permission(s) for planned prolonged periods of inactivity.
3. Reply within seven days to email communications from either the Audit Subcommittee or the Arbitration Committee about their use of the permissions.

Holders who do not comply with the activity and expectation requirements – or who mark their accounts "semi-retired", "retired", or "inactive", or who announce their effective retirement by other means – may have their permissions removed by the Arbitration Committee. Prior to removal of access, two attempts will be made to contact the holder using the email address they provided to the Committee.

Permissions will usually be reinstated on the following bases:

• Temporarily relinquished permissions will normally be promptly restored provided no issues have arisen in the interim.
• Permissions removed for unannounced inactivity will normally be restored once (a) a satisfactory explanation for the unannounced inactivity has been given and (b) satisfactory assurances about future activity levels have been received.

Requests for reinstatement for any other reason will be considered on a case by case basis.

Note that Stewards and Wikimedia Foundation staff granted CheckUser and Oversight permissions by the WMF are outside of the jurisdiction of the Arbitration Committee.

Approved by motion of the Arbitration Committee

Suppporting the motion: David Fuchs, John Vandenberg, Kirill Lokshin, Mailer diablo, Newyorkbrad, PhilKnight, Risker, Roger Davies, Shell Kinney, SirFozzie, Xeno

Abstaining: Jclemens

Not voting: Casliber, Cool Hand Luke, Coren, Elen of the Roads, Iridescent

Inactive: Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry

For the Arbitration Committee, Risker (talk) 17:33, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Archived discussion

Audit Subcommittee appointments (2011)

Effective 1 April 2011, Bahamut0013 (talk · contribs), Courcelles (talk · contribs), and Keegan (talk · contribs) are appointed as community representatives to the Audit Subcommittee. The period of appointment will be 1 April 2011 to 31 March 2012. AGK (talk · contribs) is designated as an alternate member of the subcommittee and will become a full member should one of the appointees resign their role during the term. The Arbitration Committee thanks all of the candidates, as well as the many members of the community who participated in the appointment process for these roles.

The Arbitration Committee also extends its thanks to Dominic (talk · contribs), Jredmond (talk · contribs), and MBisanz (talk · contribs), whose terms in office were extended so that an orderly transfer of responsibility could occur. Dominic will return to his previous role as a CheckUser and Oversighter; MBisanz will assume his role as an Oversighter. The Committee also thanks former subcommittee member Tznkai (talk · contribs), who was one of the original appointees to the Committee in 2009, and resigned in August 2010.

Support: Coren, David Fuchs, Elen of the Roads, PhilKnight, Jclemens, John Vandenberg, Mailer diablo, Newyorkbrad, Kirill Lokshin, Risker, Roger Davies, Shell Kinney, Xeno

Oppose: None

Abstain: None

Not voting: Casliber, Cool Hand Luke, Iridescent

Inactive: Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry, Sir Fozzie

For the Arbitration Committee, –xeno^talk 16:00, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Archived discussion

BASC Statistics

During January, February and March 2011 the Ban Appeals Subcomittee (BASC) heard 21 appeals, 4 of which were successful. The successful appeals were Turbotad, Frieds02, SanchiTachi, and Justallofthem.

For the Arbitration Committee, PhilKnight (talk) 21:30, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Archived discussion

Internal teams

To help ensure that all matters brought before the Arbitration Committee are addressed appropriately, certain arbitrators have volunteered to assume responsibility for various specific functions. A list of these arbitrators and the relevant areas is provided below for information purposes. Please note that, except for the formal subcommittees (WP:AUSC and WP:BASC), these assignments are informal and simply for purposes of internal coordination. Routine day-to-day changes will not necessarily be publicly announced. Coordination assignments are not exclusive and, except for recusals or inactive periods, all arbitrators may participate equally in all aspects of the Committee's work.

Incoming mail team

• Role: Expediting mail handling by providing initial responses; and triage of incoming mail.
• Team members: David Fuchs, Elen of the Roads, Iridescent, Jclemens, Mailer diablo, Roger Davies

Case management team

• Role: Overseeing requests for arbitration, opened cases, requests for clarification and amendment; monitoring Arbitration Enforcement.
• Team members: Cool Hand Luke, Elen of the Roads, Kirill Lokshin, Newyorkbrad, Roger Davies

Ban Appeals support team

• Role: assisting the Ban Appeals Subcommittee, with administration, statistics and correspondence.
• Team members: David Fuchs, Iridescent, Shell Kinney

Higher permissions team

• Role: coordination in selection of Oversighters, CheckUsers, and community AUSC representatives; working with the Audit Subcommittee; liaising with holders of higher permissions.
• Team members: Casliber, Risker, Xeno

Technical team

• Role: technical issues with the mailing list, the ArbCom private wiki, and related matters.
• Team members: Coren, John Vandenberg, Xeno

Overall internal coordination: Roger Davies, Kirill Lokshin

For the Arbitration Committee,  Roger ^talk 09:32, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Archived discussion

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Henri Coanda closed

An arbitration case regarding Henri Coandă has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

• Lsorin (talk · contribs) is prohibited from editing or commenting on articles about the Coandă-1910 aircraft, its inventor Henri Coandă, or the history of the jet engine. This topic-ban shall be effective indefinitely, but Lsorin may request that it be terminated or modified after at least six months have elapsed. In considering any such request, the Committee will give significant weight to whether Lsorin has established an ability to edit collaboratively and in accordance with Wikipedia policies and guidelines in other topic-areas of the project.

• The topic-ban imposed in this decision applies to all pages in all namespaces. However, the topic-ban does not preclude Lsorin from (1) responding to good-faith, reasonable inquiries from other editors on his user talkpage seeking information about the Coandă-1910, as long as Lsorin does not misuse this permission; (2) participating in the arbitration enforcement discussion of any allegation that he violated the topic-ban; or (3) posting an authorized request for the lifting or modification of the topic-ban after the specified time period has elapsed.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 21:51, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Archived discussion

Criteria for appointment to the Audit Subcommittee

To enhance the transparency of the Audit Subcommittee appointment process, the Committee has decided to publish the criteria used for appointment. For the appointments made last month, the criteria were as follows:

A candidate for the Audit Subcommittee will be appointed if:

1. No serious concerns in relation to privacy violations or other breach of trust have been raised; and
2. The candidate has been supported by at least 80% of the arbitrator votes cast.

In the event of there being more candidates meeting this standard than there are vacancies, candidates will be ranked by percentage of support. If this still results in a tie for the last available place(s), the number of support votes will be used to break the tie. If this does not break the tie, a runoff election will be held.

The fourth ranked candidate passing criteria (1) and (2) will remain an alternate, to be appointed if one of the appointed candidates retires before the end of his/her term.

These criteria were approved by a resolution of the Arbitration Committee:

Supporting: David Fuchs; Elen of the Roads; Iridescent; John Vandenberg; Kirill Lokshin; Mailer diablo; Newyorkbrad; PhilKnight; Risker; Roger Davies; Shell Kinney; Xeno

Not voting: Casliber; Cool Hand Luke; Coren; Jclemens

Inactive: SirFozzie; Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry

Unless announced otherwise, these criteria will be used for future appointments to the Audit Subcommittee.

For the Arbitration Committee, Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 00:15, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Archived discussion

Updated procedures for arbitrator activity and voting

The Arbitration Committee has updated its procedures for determining arbitrator activity and voting thresholds. The updated procedures are as follows:

Arbitrator activity

Arbitrators are presumed active unless they are on a wikibreak, have not participated in arbitration within the past week, or have informed the Committee of their absence. An inactive arbitrator may become active by voting on any aspect of a proceeding. An active arbitrator may become inactive by so stating, in which case their votes will be struck through and discounted.

Unannounced arbitrator absence

Any arbitrator who has not given prior notice of absence and who fails to post to the usual venues for seven consecutive days is deemed inactive in all matters with, where practical, retrospective effect to the date of the last known post.

Calculation of votes

Arbitrator votes are calculated on the following basis:

1. Each active, non-recused arbitrator may cast one vote; and
2. Recused, abstaining, and inactive arbitrators are discounted.

The following expressions are used, with the following meanings:

• "Four net votes": the number of votes to support or accept is at least four greater than the number of votes to oppose or decline.
• "Absolute majority": the number of votes to support or accept is greater than 50% of the total number of arbitrators, not including any arbitrators who are recused, abstaining, or inactive.

These procedures were approved by a resolution of the Arbitration Committee:

Supporting: Casliber; David Fuchs; Jclemens; John Vandenberg; Kirill Lokshin; Newyorkbrad; Risker; Roger Davies; Shell Kinney; Xeno

Not voting: Cool Hand Luke; Coren; Elen of the Roads; Iridescent; Mailer diablo; PhilKnight

Inactive: Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry

The updated procedures replace the previously published procedures for "Inactivity on internal resolutions" and "Unannounced arbitrator absence".

For the Arbitration Committee, Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 00:28, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Archived discussion

Changes requested to the checkuser and oversight permissions

In order to remove the technical limitation that checkusers and oversighters must also be administrators to review deleted content, the deletedhistory, deletedtext, and browsearchive rights should be added to the oversight and checkuser permission groups.

Supporting: Cool Hand Luke; Coren; David Fuchs; Elen of the Roads; Jclemens; John Vandenberg; Kirill Lokshin; Newyorkbrad; PhilKnight; Risker; Shell Kinney; Roger Davies; Xeno

Not voting or inactive: Casliber; Iridescent; Mailer diablo; Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry; SirFozzie

For the Arbitration Committee, –xeno^talk 14:15, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Archived discussion

Target timetable for cases

The Arbitration Committee has adopted a guideline providing a default timetable for the progression of cases, as follows:

Default case timetables

To expedite case handling, the target times are as follows:

1. The evidence phase lasts two weeks from the date of the case pages opening;
2. The workshop phase ends one week after the evidence phase closes;
3. The proposed decision is finalised within one week of the workshop phase closing.

The target times may be lengthened or shortened by initiative of the Committee, at the discretion of the drafting arbitrator(s), or at the request of one of the parties.

This guideline was approved by a resolution of the Arbitration Committee:

Supporting: David Fuchs, Elen of the Roads, Jclemens, John Vandenberg, Kirill Lokshin, PhilKnight, Risker, Roger Davies, Shell Kinney, Xeno

Abstaining: Casliber, Newyorkbrad

Not voting/inactive: Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry, Cool Hand Luke, Coren, Iridescent, Mailer diablo, SirFozzie

For the Arbitration Committee,  Roger Davies ^talk 05:33, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Archived discussion

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race and intelligence

By vote at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification, a majority of the Arbitration Committee has voted to amend the above case:

That the following replace the terms in Remedy 5.1:

Editors reminded and discretionary sanctions (amended)

5.2) Both experienced and new editors contributing to articles relating to the area of conflict (namely, the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour, broadly construed) are reminded that this is a highly contentious subject and are cautioned that to avoid disruption they must adhere strictly to fundamental Wikipedia policies, including but not limited to: maintaining a neutral point of view; avoiding undue weight; carefully citing disputed statements to reliable sources; and avoiding edit-warring and incivility.

To enforce the foregoing, Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for any editor making any edit relating to the area of conflict anywhere on Wikipedia.

Sanctions may not be imposed for edits made prior to the passing of this motion but warnings may be given and should be logged appropriately.

All sanctions imposed under the original remedy shall continue in full force.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 11:27, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Archived discussion

Arbitration procedures

The Committee has adopted the following, for incorporation into its Procedures.

Expectation of prior dispute resolution

The Committee usually expects editors to have exhausted the previous steps in the dispute resolution process before proceeding to arbitration. Exceptions include cases:

1. Where the case involves allegations of administrator misconduct or an unusually divisive dispute among administrators;
2. Where there has already been extensive discussion with wide community participation; or
3. Where there is good reason to believe that engaging in the earlier steps of the dispute resolution process would not be productive.

Opening of proceedings

A request will proceed to arbitration if it meets all of the following criteria:

1. Its acceptance has been supported by at least four net votes;
2. More than 24 hours have elapsed since the request passed the four net vote threshold; and
3. More than 48 hours have elapsed since the request was filed.

A proceeding may be opened earlier, waiving provisions 2 and 3 above, if a majority of arbitrators support fast-track opening in their acceptance votes. Once the Committee has accepted a request, a clerk will create the applicable case pages, and give the proceeding a working title. The title is for ease of identification only and may be changed by the Committee at any time. The Committee will designate one or more arbitrators to draft the case, to ensure it progresses, and to act as designated point of contact for any matters arising.

Expectation of participation in proceedings

Editors named as parties to an arbitration case, and duly notified of it, are expected to participate in the proceeding. Any editor named as a party to a case, or whose conduct otherwise comes under scrutiny during the course of a case, will be notified of this by the Committee or its clerks, and, except in exceptional circumstances, will be given a minimum of seven days to respond, calculated from the date the case opened or the date on which they are notified, whichever is later.

If a party fails to respond within a reasonable time of being notified, or explicitly refuses to participate in the case, or leaves Wikipedia just before or during the proceedings, the Committee may, at its discretion: (i) dismiss the case either in its entirety or only insofar as that party is concerned; (ii) suspend the case; (iii) continue the case regardless; or (iv) close the case by motion.

Actions by parties to a proceeding

If an administrator who is a party to a case resigns their permissions just before or during the case affecting them, they are not entitled to reinstatement under standard resysopping procedures, but are required, unless otherwise directed by the Committee, to submit a new request for adminship.

Submission of evidence

Evidence submissions are expected to be succinct and to the point. By default, they are limited to about 500 words and about 50 difference links and must be posted on the applicable case pages. The submission of evidence via sub-pages in userspace is prohibited. Editors wishing to submit over-length evidence must request the approval of the drafting arbitrator(s) prior to posting it. Unapproved over-length evidence and inappropriate material/links may be removed or redacted by the clerks.

Voting on proposed decisions

For standard hearings, proposed decisions will be posted in the form of "Principles", "Findings of Fact", "Remedies" and "Enforcement", with a separate vote for each provision. Where several substantive matters are combined in a single provision, they will be split into separate provisions for voting at the request of any arbitrator.

The final decision will consist of all proposed provisions which were passed by an absolute majority.

Motions to close

Once voting on a proposed decision appears to have ended, an arbitrator will move to close the case. To be adopted, a motion to close requires the support of the lesser of (i) four net votes or (ii) an absolute majority.

A final consideration period of at least 24 hours will usually elapse between the casting of the fourth net vote to close the case and the implementation of any remedies. However, closure may be fast-tracked if (i) all clauses pass unanimously or (ii) an absolute majority vote in the motion to do so.

Motions to dismiss

If, at any time, the Committee determines by an absolute majority that (i) issuing a formal decision serves no useful purpose; (ii) a majority decision is not achievable; or (iii) a case may best be resolved by a single motion rather than a full decision; it may close, dismiss or otherwise resolve the case by motion.

The procedures were adopted by resolution of the Arbitration Committee:

Support

Casliber, Cool Hand Luke, David Fuchs, Iridescent, Jclemens, John Vandenberg, Kirill Lokshin, Mailer diablo, Newyorkbrad, PhilKnight, Risker, Roger Davies, Shell Kinney, SirFozzie, Xeno

Oppose/Abstain

None

Inactive/Not voting

Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry; Coren, Elen of the Roads

For the Arbitration Committee,  Roger Davies ^talk 07:22, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Archived discussion

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Noleander closed

An arbitration case regarding Noleander (talk · contribs) has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

1. Noleander (talk · contribs) is topic-banned from making any edit relating to Judaism, the Jewish people, Jewish history or culture, or individual Jewish persons identified as such, broadly but reasonably construed, in any namespace.

   Any disputes concerning the scope of the topic-ban may be raised on the Arbitration Enforcement page for prompt resolution. Unnecessary "wikilawyering" about the precise scope of the topic-ban is unwelcome and may be cause for further sanctions.

   This topic-ban shall be effective indefinitely, but Noleander may request that it be terminated or modified after at least one year has elapsed. In considering any such request, the Committee will give significant weight to whether Noleander has established an ability to edit collaboratively and in accordance with Wikipedia policies and guidelines in other topic-areas of the project. Any perceptibly biased or prejudiced editing concerning any other group would weigh against lifting of the topic-ban and could also result in further sanctions.

2. The attention of editors and administrators is drawn to the "Editors reminded and discretionary sanctions (amended)" clause of Race and intelligence that was recently adopted, as its terms are applicable to other disputes similar to those arising in this current case. For ease of reference, the amended remedy states:

   Both experienced and new editors contributing to articles relating to the area of conflict (namely, the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour, broadly construed) are reminded that this is a highly contentious subject and are cautioned that to avoid disruption they must adhere strictly to fundamental Wikipedia policies, including but not limited to: maintaining a neutral point of view; avoiding undue weight; carefully citing disputed statements to reliable sources; and avoiding edit-warring and incivility.

For the Arbitration Committee, Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 16:30, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Archived discussion

Updated Arbitration policy (final draft)

The final draft of a proposed update to the existing Arbitration policy is available. It has received extensive community review already but all editors are cordially invited to review the final draft and comment. The draft is here.  Roger Davies ^talk 10:46, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Discuss this

Clerk promotion

We are pleased to announce that Salvio giuliano (talk · contribs) has been promoted to a full Arbitration Committee Clerk position, effective immediately.

We thank Salvio giuliano and all of the Clerks for their assistance to the Committee and its work.

For the Arbitration Committee, Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:30, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Checkuser practice regarding the association of IP addresses to accounts

A concern was filed about a checkuser confirming on an SPI case that an IP address was associated with a specific editor. The request was subsequently withdrawn following discussion between the concerned party and the checkuser. Nonetheless, it is important to note that, while checkusers are normally reticent to make such direct links, there are valid reasons within the privacy policy to do so under certain circumstances. Those circumstances can include editors logging out to behave disruptively. The practice of declining to publicly link such activities to an account is merely a tradition, and checkusers may do so if discretion warrants it.

For the Audit Subcommittee, bahamut0013^words_deeds 15:38, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Discuss this

Happy-melon Oversight resignation

The Arbitration Committee has accepted Happy-melon's resignation from the Oversight role. We would like to extend our thanks to Happy-melon for his service in this role, and we are pleased that this resignation is prompted by his desire to focus on his role as a MediaWiki developer, where we expect his future contributions will benefit far more than just the English Wikipedia.

For the Arbitration Committee, Jclemens (talk) 13:38, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Discuss this

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration Enforcement sanction handling closed

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above.

Users Dreadstar, Sandstein, and Ludwigs2 are encouraged to read and reflect on the remedies applicable to them. All administrators who intend to enforce or undo an action linked to an arbitration remedy are advised to read the principles and remedies of the case.

For the Arbitration Committee, NW (Talk) 19:16, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Discuss this

Arbitration motion regarding Russavia-Biophys

Following a request for clarification filed at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment on 21 April 2011, the Arbitration Committee has resolved that:

Remedy 8 ("YMB29 topic banned") of Russavia-Biophys is terminated, effective immediately. YMB29 is placed on a one-revert-per-day restriction in the relevant topic area ("articles about the Soviet Union and former Soviet Republics, and all related articles") for a period of one year. YMB29 is reminded to abide by the principles discussed in the decision, as well as all applicable Wikipedia policies and guidelines, in his future editing, and that he remains subject to discretionary sanctions under the terms of related decisions should he violate them.

For the Arbitration Committee, AGK [•] 12:18, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Discuss this

Committee procedures relating to Ban appeals and to Discretionary sanctions

The following provisions have been added to the procedures of the Arbitration Committee:

Ban appeals

An editor who is indefinitely topic-banned or otherwise restricted from editing in a topic area under an Arbitration Committee decision may request an amendment to lift or modify the restriction after an appropriate time period has elapsed. A reasonable minimum time period for such a request will ordinarily be six months, unless the decision provides for a different time or the Committee subsequently determines otherwise. In considering such a request, the Committee will give significant weight to, among other factors, whether the editor in question has established an ability to edit collaboratively and in accordance with Wikipedia policies and guidelines in other topic-areas of the project.

Discretionary sanctions

Administrators are reminded that:

1. Discretionary sanctions are a fast-track procedure to tackle misconduct within defined topic areas and/or to prevent disputes from within the defined topic area overflowing freely into other areas of the encyclopedia;
2. Discretionary sanctions may be imposed by any uninvolved administrator after giving due warning;
3. Best practice includes seeking additional input prior to applying a novel sanction or when a reasonable, uninvolved editor may question whether the sanction is within the scope of the relevant case;
4. Warnings should be clear and unambiguous, link to the decision authorising the sanctions, identify misconduct and advise how the editor may mend their ways;
5. Notices of imposed sanctions should specify the misconduct for which they have been imposed as well as the appeal process;
6. Discretionary sanctions have an established and clearly defined appeal process, which must be adhered to;
7. Overturning arbitration enforcement actions out of process is strictly prohibited per longstanding principle;
8. Discretionary sanctions should be used with caution where the community is already dealing with the specific issue through dispute resolution processes.

The first new procedure was adopted by motion by 11 to 0 (with 1 abstention) on 6 May 2011. The second new procedure was adopted by decision in Arbitration Enforcement sanction handling by 11 to 0 (with 0 abstentions) on 5 May 2011.

For the Arbitration Committee,
AGK [•] 13:08, 7 May 2011 (UTC)