Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard

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

Agenda

Arbitration Committee proceedings

• recent changes
• purge this page
• view or discuss this template

Case requests

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

[edit]

Open cases

Case name	Links	Evidence due	Prop. Dec. due
Venezuelan politics	(t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t)	20 Apr 2024	04 May 2024

[edit]

Recently closed cases (Past cases)

Case name	Closed
Conflict of interest management	13 Apr 2024
Mzajac	7 May 2024

Clarification and Amendment requests

Request name	Motions	Case	Posted
Amendment request: Conduct in deletion-related editing	none	(orig. case)	30 April 2024
Clarification request: Palestine-Israel articles 4	none	(orig. case)	13 May 2024
Amendment request: Article titles and capitalisation	none	(orig. case)	13 May 2024

Arbitrator motions

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Current agenda

The Committee's current agenda is as follows:

Review Committee performance (Six-month review)
Milestones:
Executive summary published 22 July 2009 Full version due for publication 22 August 2009 Depending on feedback will open on RFC in September 2009
Status:
Preparation of fuller report in progress

Review mail handling process
Milestones:
Documentation of procedures underway Documentation completion date: August 15
Status:
Documentation of procedures underway

Determine workshop page structure
Milestones:
Publication of recommendations for discussion by 30 September
Status:
No activity at this time

Prepare updated arbitration policy
Milestones:
Prepare updated draft #3 and publish it for discussion by 15 September Referendum on draft #3 (date to be announced) Prepare updated guide to arbitration after referendum
Status:
Draft #2 published; preparation of draft #3 in progress

Rotate Ban Appeals Subcommittee membership
Milestones:
Rotate one member by August 1 Rotate one member by September 1 Rotate one member by October 1 Rotate one member by November 1 Rotate one member by December 1
Status:
No activity at this time

Appoint CU & OS auditing subcommittee
Milestones:
Determine election mechanism by August 15
Status:
Election mechanism under discussion

Determine updates to arbitration enforcement procedures
Milestones:
Decide on reform proposals by September 5 Implement reforms by September 19
Status:
No activity at this time

Develop an arbitrator recall process
Milestones:
Prepare proposal by September 5 Decide on proposal by September 26
Status:
No activity at this time

Determine how to deal with users returning from bans
Milestones:
Prepare proposal by September 12 Decide on proposal by October 3
Status:
No activity at this time

Review clerk procedures
Milestones:
Conduct review by September 19
Status:
No activity at this time

Review ban appeals process
Milestones:
Internal review underway Six-month review in October 2009 Consider options for public ban appeals in October 2009
Status:
Internal review in progress

Determine approach to dealing with inactive administrators
Milestones:
Deferred to October 2009, not pressing
Status:
No activity at this time

Determine approach to handling civility issues
Milestones:
Open public RFC by October 3 Compile RFC results by October 24 Prepare further proposals by November 7
Status:
No activity at this time

Determine approach to handling vested contributor issues
Milestones:
Open public RFC by October 3 Compile RFC results by October 24 Prepare further proposals by November 7
Status:
No activity at this time

Prepare transition procedure
Milestones:
Prepare draft procedure by October 31 Prepare final procedure by November 30
Status:
No activity at this time

Prepare updated induction document
Milestones:
Prepare draft by October 31 Prepare final version by November 30
Status:
No activity at this time

Discuss the agenda

Calendar

{{Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Agenda/Calendar/{{CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{CURRENTYEAR}}}}

Announcements

Access to CheckUser and Oversight

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion to remove access to CheckUser and Oversight on grounds of inactivity from editors who have not used the tools in the past twelve months. Access may be applied for afresh via CheckUser and Oversight elections. The motion was adopted with 13 arbitrators supporting, and no objections or abstentions.

• Support: Carcharoth, Casliber, Coren, FayssalF, FloNight, Jayvdb, Kirill Lokshin, Risker, Rlevse, Roger Davies, Sam Blacketer, Vassyana, Wizardman
• Oppose: None
• Abstain: None
• Not voting: Cool Hand Luke, NewYorkBrad

For the Arbitration Committee,  Roger Davies ^talk 12:12, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

Request for comments on content dispute resolution

In order to gauge community opinion on the subject and to gather potential ideas for reform, the Committee has opened a request for comments regarding the content dispute resolution process. All editors are invited to present views and proposals on any matter relevant to the resolution of disputes over article content.

The request was approved by an 10/1 vote, with no abstentions:

• Support: Carcharoth, Casliber, FayssalF, FloNight, John Vandenberg, Kirill Lokshin, Rlevse, Roger Davies, Vassyana, Sam Blacketer
• Oppose: Risker
• Abstain: None
• Not voting: Carcharoth, Cool Hand Luke, Coren, Newyorkbrad, Stephen Bain, Wizardman

For the Committee, Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 20:20, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

RFAR/West Bank - Judea and Samaria

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. Canadian Monkey (talk · contribs), G-Dett (talk · contribs), MeteorMaker (talk · contribs), Nickhh (talk · contribs), Nishidani (talk · contribs), NoCal100 (talk · contribs), and Pedrito (talk · contribs) are prohibited from editing any Arab-Israeli conflict-related article/talk page or discussing on the dispute anywhere else on the project. Jayjg (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) is also prohibited from editing in the area of conflict, and he is stripped of his status as a functionary and any and all associated privileged access, including the CheckUser and Oversight tools and the checkuser-l, oversight-l, and functionaries-en mailing lists. Jayjg is also thanked for his years of service.

After six months, these editors may individually ask the Arbitration Committee to lift their editing restrictions after demonstrating commitment to the goals of Wikipedia and ability to work constructively with other editors. However, restrictions may be temporarily suspended for the exclusive purpose of participating in the discussion of draft guidelines for this area.

In the meantime, the community is strongly urged to pursue current discussions to come to a definitive consensus on the preferred current and historical names of the region that is the source of conflict in this case. Note that this must be consistent with current Wikipedia guidelines on reliable sources, a neutral point of view, and naming conventions. This decision will be appended onto this case within two months from the close of the case.

For the Arbitration Committee, hmwithτ 17:20, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

Ireland collaboration

The three moderators appointed by the Arbitration Committee for WikiProject Ireland Collaboration are no longer active in the project under that capacity. These disengagements occurred voluntarily and separately under individual conditions without controversy. PhilKnight (talk · contribs), Edokter (talk · contribs), and SebastianHelm (talk · contribs) are all thanked for their hard work and efforts as moderators. In response to the openings, the Committee appoints Masem (talk · contribs) and Xavexgoem (talk · contribs) as moderators, thanking them for taking on this task. A third moderator is not yet appointed, pending discussion with the participants.

For the Committee, --Vassyana (talk) 15:49, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Notification of motion relating to Baronets naming dispute

The Arbitration Committee, in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Baronets naming dispute, have voted to implement a motion. It can be viewed on the case page by following this link. The motion is as follows:

The community enacted topic ban on Vintagekits (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Kittybrewster (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is recognized and confirmed. Kittybrewster is admonished to respect community and administrator decisions, including the imposition of sanctions, and directed to utilize the standard channels of appeal and review in cases where he disagrees. Disregard for sanctions, whether imposed by an administrator, the community, or the Arbitration Committee, is grounds for the imposition of escalating blocks and/or further sanctions. Vintagekits and Kittbrewster are indefinitely restricted from moving pages relating to Baronets and Knights, broadly interpreted. They are both restricted from nominating articles created by the other for deletion and more generally warned from unnecessarily interacting with each other, especially where it is likely to be perceived as baiting, trolling, or another form of harassment. BrownHairedGirl (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) is admonished not to use administrative tools to further her own position in a dispute. BrownHairedGirl is prohibited indefinitely from taking any administrative action against or in connection with Vintagekits.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, KnightLago (talk) 21:03, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

Oversight usage statistics

The Arbitration Committee has authorised the Audit Subcommittee to release the statistics for use of Oversight for the 6 month period ending 30 Apr 2009. The report is here.

For the Audit Subcommittee, Thatcher 23:33, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Discuss this

Requests for arbitration/Aitias

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The administrator privileges of Aitias (talk · contribs) are suspended for a period of "time served", i.e. from the date of his return to editing until the close of the case, and are to be restored with the closing of this case. Furthermore, Aitias is admonished for making inappropriate and unnecessarily sarcastic comments and is warned to avoid such comments in the future. Aitias is also prohibited from participating at Requests for rollback and its talk page for a period of six months.

For the Arbitration Committee, [[Sam Korn]] ^(smoddy) 13:10, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

RFAR/Abd and JzG

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. JzG (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) is admonished not to use his administrative tools in any situation in which he is involved nor to use them to further his position in a dispute. Abd (talk · contribs) is urged to avoid prolonging disputes by using unproductive methods and advised to clearly and succinctly document previous and current attempts at dispute resolution before escalating to the next stage. Abd is also advised to heed good-faith feedback when handling disputes and to incorporate that feedback.

For the Arbitration Committee, hmwithτ 17:29, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

Standard operating procedure: CheckUser and Oversight

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that editors who hold Oversight and/or Checkuser permissions but who have not used the tool/s for more than twelve months will have access to the tool/s and to the associated mailing list/s removed. For arbitrators, the twelve-month inactivity clock starts on the day they leave office.

• Support: Carcharoth, Casliber, FayssalF, FloNight, Jayvdb, Kirill, Risker, Rlevse, Roger, Sam Blacketer, Wizardman
• Oppose: None
• Abstain: None
• Not voting: Cool Hand Luke, Coren, NewYorkBrad, Stephen Bain, Vassyana

For the Arbitration Committee,  Roger Davies ^talk 10:40, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Discuss this

Resignation

Some months ago I decided to resign from the committee and return to article editing, notifying the committee privately on 20 February. That resignation now takes effect. Before joining the committee I had used the account Fys for editing which should have been disclosed. Sam Blacketer (talk) 17:31, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Committee statement

It recently came to the attention of the Arbitration Committee that arbitrator Sam Blacketer (talk · contribs) has previously edited under the account name Dbiv (talk · contribs) a/k/a Fys (talk · contribs), a former administrator who was desysopped in a Committee decision in 2006. This fact was not known to any of the sitting arbitrators – nor to the best of the committee's knowledge any previous arbitrator – until the past 24-48 hours.

The Committee was in the process of addressing this situation, of which its members had just learned, when Sam Blacketer submitted his resignation as an arbitrator, effective immediately. Under the circumstances, the resignation was accepted. Sam Blacketer has also been removed from the arbcom-l and functionaries-en mailing lists, and his access to the arbitration wiki has been removed. We note that Sam Blacketer never had Oversight or CheckUser privileges, so the issue of his status regarding access to those tools does not arise. The status of his adminship will be decided within the next 24 hours.

This statement was approved by an 11/1 vote, with no abstentions:

• Support: Carcharoth, Casliber, Cool Hand Luke, FloNight, John Vandenberg, Risker, Kirill Lokshin, Newyorkbrad, Rlevse, Stephen Bain, Wizardman
• Oppose: Coren
• Abstain: None
• Not voting: FayssalF, Roger Davies, Vassyana

John Vandenberg, for the Arbitration Committee, 05:01, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Coren's statement

As the sole dissenter, I felt it important to explain my rationale.

The statement from the Committee is correct, but I opposed it as I feel it is lopsided because it is incomplete. While I agree wholeheartedly that Sam's omission to disclose his past account during his tenure as Arbitrator is unacceptable and is incompatible with maintaining a seat on the committee, I felt it important to underline his excellent work as an Arbitrator. In my opinion, we would be unjust to dismiss over sixteen months of dedication and hard work for the community, even if the circumstances leading to his appointment were tainted by the lack of transparency.

John Vandenberg, for Coren, 05:12, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Discuss this

Progress of resolution of naming issue for placenames in Israel and Palestine

In relation to remedy 13.1 of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/West Bank - Judea and Samaria,
I have requested an update on progress at:

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Israel_Palestine_Collaboration/Placename_guidelines#Current_status

for the proposed guidelines currently located at:

Wikipedia:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration/Placename guidelines

all input and observations are welcome. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:40, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Update

Voting or commenting on each segment of the Proposed guidelines in relation to remedy 13.1 of the recently closed West Bank - Judea and Samaria arbitration case. Please comment here on preferred usage in the West Bank/Judea and Samaria area, to determine consensus by July 13th 2009. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:17, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Ryulong

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. For misuse of his administrative tools, failure to address the community's concerns, and inappropriate off-wiki behavior, Ryulong (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) is desysopped. Mythdon (talk · contribs) is restricted and placed under mentorship for a period of 1 year. Mythdon is also admonished for their harassing behavior on and off-wiki and directed to refrain from contacting Ryulong off-wiki and seeking Ryulong's identity on and off-wiki. All participants of WikiProject Tokusatsu are advised to work on producing a genuine guideline for the articles falling under the scope of the WikiProject. They are urged to work in collaboration with Mythdon while seeking outside advice and help. Other remedies also apply.

For the Arbitration Committee, KnightLago (talk) 20:31, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Discuss this

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Fringe science amended

The following motion was carried 9 to 0 (with 2 recusals and 1 abstention) further to this request to amend the Fringe science arbitration case:

• 1) Kaldari, Sceptre, and Durova are granted permission to act as proxies for ScienceApologist by making edits to the optics article, its talk page, and any process pages directly related to the optics featured article drive.

The motion has been entered onto the arbitration case page, at #Further motion following Request for Amendment (May 2009).

For the Arbitration Committee,
AGK 14:18, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Discuss this

Arbitration motion regarding Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Midnight Syndicate

Per a motion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification:

The remedies (1 and 2) ordered by this Committee in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Midnight Syndicate are suspended for a period of 90 days. During this period, the editors who were previously restricted by these remedies may edit without topic restriction. However, they are instructed to comply with all applicable Wikipedia policies and guidelines in their editing, particularly those discussed in the original arbitration decision. Each of these editors is also instructed to edit these articles from only a single account.

During the 90-day trial period, should any of the previously restricted editors engage in edit-warring, POV editing, or other misconduct on the articles in question, any uninvolved administrator may reinstate the topic ban against that editor or impose another appropriate sanction. Unless the misconduct is blatant, a warning to the editor should first be given.

As the end of the 90-day period approaches, a request for permanent termination or modification of the remedies may be submitted for consideration by this Committee.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Tiptoety ^talk 18:31, 27 May 2009 (UTC)'

Discuss this

Arbitration motion regarding Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ayn Rand

Per a motion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment:

The topic ban imposed on TallNapoleon (talk · contribs) (see WP:RANDARB#TallNapoleon topic-banned and warned) is removed. In place of a mainspace topic ban, TallNapoleon is subject to a zero-revert restriction (0RR) on Ayn Rand and related articles for the remainder of the six-month duration. He is instructed to seek talk page consensus before undertaking any potentially controversial edits. TallNapoleon is encouraged to continue his efforts to develop a functional consensus and improve articles related to the subject.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Tiptoety ^talk 22:00, 28 May 2009 (UTC)'

Discuss this

Arbitration motion regarding Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/West Bank - Judea and Samaria

Per a motion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment:

In remedy 1.1 ("Area of conflict") of the West Bank - Judea and Samaria case, "... the Palestine/Israel dispute ..." is replaced with "... the Arab-Israeli conflict ...".

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Tiptoety ^talk 23:13, 28 May 2009 (UTC)'

Discuss this

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Scientology

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following editors are subjected to bans/topic-bans/restrictions as listed below :

• Banned : John254 (talk · contribs) (Community Ban), Justallofthem (talk · contribs)
• Topic-banned : CSI LA (talk · contribs), Grrrilla (talk · contribs), Makoshack (talk · contribs), Proximodiz (talk · contribs), Su-Jada (talk · contribs), TaborG (talk · contribs), Jack Russell Terrier (talk · contribs), Jpierreg (talk · contribs), Maureen D (talk · contribs), OngoingHow (talk · contribs), Seelltey (talk · contribs), Tturrisi (talk · contribs), Voxpopulis (talk · contribs), AndroidCat (talk · contribs), Antaeus Feldspar (talk · contribs), Anynobody (talk · contribs), Derflipper (talk · contribs), Fahrenheit451 (talk · contribs), Misou (talk · contribs), Orsini (talk · contribs), Shrampes (talk · contribs), Shutterbug (talk · contribs), Steve Dufour (talk · contribs), Tilman (talk · contribs), The Legendary Shadow! (talk · contribs), Touretzky (talk · contribs)
• To contact the Committee : Arnielerma*, Karin Spaink*, StephenAKent*, Timbowles*, Tory Christman*, Hkhenson*, Rick Alan Ross (talk · contribs)
• Other restrictions :
  • Jossi (talk · contribs) gave up his status as an administrator in the face of controversy concerning his administrator actions during an arbitration case, he may not be automatically re-granted adminship. However, he is free to seek readminship, should he choose to do so, at any time by a request for adminship at Requests for adminship.
  • ChrisO (talk · contribs) is to abide to a binding voluntary restriction that within the Scientology topic (i) he limits his edits to directly improving articles to meet GA and FA criteria, using reliable sources; (ii) he makes no edits of whatever nature to biographies of living people; and (iii) he refrains from sysop action of whatever nature.
  • Jayen466 (talk · contribs) is topic-banned from articles about Rick Ross, broadly defined.

#Editors marked in * have since contacted the Committee.

Any editor who is subject to remedies in this proceeding, or who wishes to edit from an open proxy, is restricted to a single current or future account to edit Scientology-related topics and may not contribute to the topic as anonymous IP editors. Editors topic banned by remedies in this proceeding are prohibited (i) from editing articles related to Scientology or Scientologists, broadly defined, as well as the respective article talk pages and (ii) from participating in any Wikipedia process relating to those articles. Editors topic banned above may apply to have the topic ban lifted after demonstrating their commitment to the goals of Wikipedia and their ability to work constructively with other editors. Applications will be considered no earlier than six months after the close of this case, and additional reviews will be done no more frequently than every six months thereafter.

Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, ban any editor from editing within the Scientology topic. Prior to topic banning the editor, the administrator will leave a message on the editor's talk page, linking to this paragraph, warning the editor that a topic ban is contemplated and outlining the behaviours for which it is contemplated. If the editor fails to heed the warning, the editor may be topic banned, initially, for three months, then with additional topic bans increasing in duration to a maximum of one year. Any editor who, in the judgment of an uninvolved administrator, is (i) focused primarily on Scientology or Scientologists and (ii) clearly engaged in promoting an identifiable agenda may be topic-banned for up to one year.

All IP addresses owned or operated by the Church of Scientology and its associates, broadly interpreted, are to be blocked as if they were open proxies. Any current or future editor who, after this decision is announced, makes substantial edits to any Scientology-related articles or discussions on any page is directed to edit on these from only a single user account, which shall be the user's sole or main account, unless the user has previously sought and obtained permission from the Arbitration Committee to operate a legitimate second account. They shall edit in accordance to Wikipedia policies and refrain from advocacy, to disclose on the relevant talk pages any circumstances (but not including personal identifying information) that constitute or may reasonably be perceived as constituting a conflict of interest with respect to that page, and not through a proxy configuration.

- For the Arbitration Committee, Mailer Diablo 01:30, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Discuss this

Ban Appeal Sub Committee - amending procedure

Procedure

It has been resolved that instead of replacing all three arbitrators each quarter, one arbitrator is replaced each month.

• Support: Carcharoth, Casliber, Cool Hand Luke, Coren, FayssalF, FloNight, John Vandenberg, Kirill, Newyorkbrad, Risker, Rlevse, Roger, Vassyana, Wizardman
• Oppose:
• Abstain:
• Not voting: Stephen Bain

The members of the sub committee for June are: Casliber, FayssalF and Roger.

For the Arbitration Committee,  Roger Davies ^talk 23:19, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Discuss this

Unexpected arbitrator absence

Note: this reduces the existing traditional period of unexpected absence from fourteen to seven days.

It has been resolved that 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.

• Support: Carcharoth, Casliber, Coren, FayssalF, FloNight, John Vandenberg, Kirill, Newyorkbrad, Roger, Vassyana, Wizardman
• Oppose:
• Abstain:
• Not voting: Cool Hand Luke, Risker, Rlevse, Stephen Bain

For the Arbitration Committee,  Roger Davies ^talk 23:41, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Discuss this

User:Guido den Broeder banned

User:Guido den Broeder has been banned from editing en.wiki by arbcom for editing incompatible with our project. The vote was 10-0-1:

Support: Casliber, Coren, FayssalF, FloNight, Jayvdb, Kirill Lokshin, Risker, Rlevse, Roger Davies, Wizardman

Oppose: None

Abstain: Cool Hand Luke

Not voting: Carcharoth, Newyorkbrad, Stephen Bain, Vassyana

For the committee, — Rlevse • Talk • 11:15, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Discuss this

Arbitration motion regarding Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Bluemarine

Per a motion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment:

The topic ban placed on Benjiboi (talk · contribs) in relation to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Bluemarine is rescinded.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Tiptoety ^talk 18:59, 11 June 2009 (UTC)'

Discuss this

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia 2

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

• All editors on Macedonia-related articles are directed to get the advice of neutral parties via means such as outside opinions and Geopolitical ethnic and religious conflicts noticeboard (WP:ECCN), especially since there are significant problems in reaching consensus.
• All articles related to Macedonia (defined as any article that could be reasonably construed as being related to Macedonia, Macedonia nationalism, Greece related articles that mention Macedonia, and other articles in which how Macedonia will be referred to is an issue) fall under 1RR whenever the dispute over naming is concerned. Editors enforcing a case where a binding Stalemate resolution has been found are exempt from 1RR.
• The following users have been banned from Wikipedia : Avg (talk · contribs)^{one year}, ΚΕΚΡΩΨ (talk · contribs)^{one year}, and Reaper7 (talk · contribs)^{six months} .
• The following users have been topic-banned from Macedonia-related articles and their talk pages, as defined in All related articles under 1RR: Avg (talk · contribs)^indefinitely, ΚΕΚΡΩΨ (talk · contribs)^indefinitely, Reaper7 (talk · contribs)^{one year} and, SQRT5P1D2 (talk · contribs)^{one year}.
• The Committee takes note that ChrisO (talk · contribs) has resigned his administrator status while this case was pending, but also notes that he is desysopped as a result of the above case. ChrisO may obtain the tools back via the usual means or by request to the Arbitration Committee.
• Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) is strongly admonished for displaying a long pattern of incivil, rude, offensive, and insulting behavior towards other editors and failure to address the community's concerns in this regard. Because of this Future Perfect at Sunrise is subject to an editing restriction for one year, and is desysopped for three months as a consequence of poor user conduct and misuse of administrative tools. After three months, his administrator access will be automatically restored.
• Single-purpose accounts are strongly advised to edit in accordance with WP:SPA and other Wikipedia policies. Diversifying one's topics of interest is also encouraged.
• Abuse filter 119, as currently configured, logs all changes involving the word "Macedonia" but does not block any edits. The community is strongly advised to consider adding a new abuse filter criterion; any instances of changing the word "Macedonia" to "FYROM" (the five-letter acronym, not the full phrase) shall be prevented.
• Within seven days of the closure of this case, a discussion is to be opened to consider the preferred current and historical names for the four entities known as Macedonia. The discussion will end one month after it is opened.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Tiptoety ^talk 21:41, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Discuss this

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tang Dynasty

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

Tenmei (talk · contribs) is topic-banned from Inner Asia during the Tang Dynasty for a period of six months. He is permitted to comment on the talkpage, provided that he does so in a civil fashion. He is instructed not to interact with or comment with regard to Teeninvestor (talk · contribs) or Caspian blue (talk · contribs) on any page of Wikipedia (except in the course of legitimate dispute resolution initiated by others or his mentors). Tenmei shall also be assigned one or more volunteer mentors. Other remedies also apply.

The parties are instructed to carefully review the principles and findings contained in this decision. Each of the parties is strongly urged to conform his or her future behavior to the principles set forth in this decision. Should the remedies fail to improve the situation described in this decision, after a reasonable time, an application may be made to reopen the case and impose other remedies as may be necessary.

- For the Committee, Mailer Diablo 22:44, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Discuss this

Arbitration motions regarding Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names

Per these motions at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment:

Discussions relating to the naming of Ireland articles must occur at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration.

Moderators of Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration may ban any contributor from the pages within the scope of the WikiProject for up to a month when a contributor is disrupting the collaboration process.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Tiptoety ^talk 21:09, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Discuss this

Motion allowing parties currently banned from I/P articles to comment on naming guidelines for I/P articles

To allow users currently banned from I/P articles to comment on naming guidelines for I/P articles. Conditions are that they may make very short comments in each section once, and may not comment on other users.

Motion failed.

The vote was 0-9-4:

Support: None

Oppose: Carcharoth, Cool Hand Luke, Coren, FloNight, Jayvdb, Kirill Lokshin, Risker, Rlevse, Wizardman

Abstain: Casliber, FayssalF, Newyorkbrad, Vassyana

Not voting: Roger Davies, Stephen Bain

— Coren ^(talk), for the Committee, 00:06, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Discuss this

Appeals to the Ban Appeals Subcommittee: Aarandir & Anonimu

The Ban Appeals Subcommittee has allowed the appeals of:

• Aarandir (talk · contribs)
• Anonimu (talk · contribs)

The text of the decisions and any associated restrictions have been posted on the applicable user talk pages.

For the Arbitration Committee,  Roger Davies ^talk 14:39, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Discuss this

Nichalp

In response to community concerns about Nichalp (talk · contribs) using an undisclosed account (Zithan (talk · contribs)) for paid editing, and because of Nichalp's failure to reply to the Arbitration Committee's email enquiry about these concerns, Nichalp's bureaucrat, administrator and oversight status, and his access to the associated mailing lists (<functionaries-en@lists.wikimedia.org> and <oversight-l@lists.wikimedia.org>), are temporarily removed and User:Zithan is indefinitely blocked.

Nichalp is instructed to contact the Arbitration Committee as soon as possible in order to resolve the issues related to his special access privileges and the Zithan account.

The vote was 8-0-1:

Support: Carcharoth, Casliber, Coren, FloNight, Risker, Rlevse, Roger Davies, Wizardman

Oppose: None

Abstain: FayssalF

Not voting: Cool Hand Luke, Jayvdb, Kirill Lokshin, Newyorkbrad, Stephen Bain, Vassyana

— Coren ^(talk), for the Committee, 21:51, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Discuss this

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Date delinking

This arbitration case has now closed. The final decision may be reviewed on the case page. A synopsis of the final decision is provided below.

• All mass date delinking is restricted for six months
• Date delinking bots will perform in a manner approved by the Bot Approvals Group.
• Lightmouse (talk · contribs) is: banned for 1 year; topic banned indefinitely; prohibited indefinitely from using automation, from using any account but "Lightmouse"
• Tony1 (talk · contribs) indefinitely banned from editing any policy or guideline page related to article or editing style, as well as any related template page; placed on a 12 month editing restriction
• Greg L (talk · contribs) indefinitely topic banned, placed on a 12 month editing restriction
• Ohconfucius (talk · contribs) is: topic banned indefinitely; prohibited indefinitely from using automation; prohibited indefinitely from using any account but "Ohconfucius"; placed on a12 month editing restriction
• The Rambling Man (talk · contribs) admonished for not pursuing appropriate dispute resolution methods.
• Kotniski (talk · contribs) reminded to pursue appropriate dispute resolution methods, topic banned for 3 months
• Placed on a 12 month editing restriction: Dabomb87 (talk · contribs), 2008Olympian (talk · contribs), Colonies Chris (talk · contribs), SkyWalker (talk · contribs), HJensen (talk · contribs), Dudesleeper (talk · contribs), John (talk · contribs), Tennis expert (talk · contribs), and G-Man (talk · contribs)
• Pmanderson (talk · contribs) is topic banned for 12 months.
• Locke Cole (talk · contribs) is topic banned indefinitely, banned for 6 months, and placed on a 12 month editing restriction
• Kendrick7 (talk · contribs) is topic banned for 12 months
• Arthur Rubin (talk · contribs) admonished for threatening to use his administrator tools to advance his position in a dispute.

Notes: (1) for "topic banned", read "banned from style and editing guidelines, and any related discussions"; (2) an "editing restriction" is a prohibition from reverting any changes which are principally stylistic, except where all style elements are prescribed in the applicable style guideline.

For the Arbitration Committee,

AGK 19:58, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Discuss this

Changes of account name by restricted users

To allow better enforcement of arbitration decisions, the Committee has amended its enforcement procedures to include the following provision:

If an editor is subject to any sort of Arbitration Committee parole or restriction, and wishes to start a new account or to change their username with a suppressed redirect from the old name, they must notify the Committee of this before they proceed with editing under said new account/name. Failure to disclose this, if discovered, is grounds for a ban from the project.

This resolution was adopted by a 10/0 vote, with one abstention:

• Support: Carcharoth, Casliber, Coren, FloNight, John Vandenberg, Kirill Lokshin, Rlevse, Roger Davies, Vassyana, Wizardman
• Oppose: None
• Abstain: Newyorkbrad
• Recused: None
• Not voting: Cool Hand Luke, FayssalF, Risker, Stephen Bain

For the Committee, Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 00:22, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Discuss this

Statement regarding the Matthew Hoffman case

The present Arbitration Committee has reviewed the Matthew Hoffman case, which took place in December 2007 and January 2008. The Committee has concluded that a series of significant irregularities occurred which, in combination, were prejudicial to Shoemaker's Holiday. These irregularities were that:

• The request for arbitration bypassed preliminary steps in the dispute resolution process, and should not have been accepted as framed;
• A decision in the case was presented for voting prematurely, limiting the ability of the parties to respond;
• Order was not adequately kept on the case pages, allowing them to be used as a platform for attacks;
• The schedule of the proceedings was not clearly communicated to the parties; and
• Correspondence about the case on arbcom-l was handled incorrectly.

This unique confluence of irregularities resulted in a fundamentally flawed process and the present Committee takes this opportunity to apologize to Shoemaker's Holiday and to the community. Further, the Committee has determined that all findings reflecting adversely on Shoemaker's Holiday, under any account name, are nullified. The Committee notes that Shoemaker's Holiday has agreed to consult with the Committee prior to re-seeking adminship.

This statement was adopted by a 8/2 vote, with three abstentions and two recusals:

• Support: Casliber, Cool Hand Luke, FloNight, John Vandenberg, Kirill Lokshin, Risker, Roger Davies, Wizardman
• Oppose: Rlevse, Stephen Bain
• Abstain: Coren, FayssalF, Newyorkbrad
• Recused: Carcharoth, Vassyana
• Not voting: None

For the Committee, Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 00:25, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Discuss this

New rules for inactivity on internal resolutions

The Committee has determined that:

(a) Any arbitrator who fails to enter a vote on an internal resolution within one week of the vote having been generally announced on arbcom-l will be considered inactive on that resolution, and will not be counted when determining the majority for the resolution's passage; and

(b) Any arbitrator considered inactive under provision (a) will be so marked when the resolution is published; but

(c) An internal resolution will not come into effect if the total number of arbitrators voting on it is less than an absolute majority of the Committee.

This resolution was adopted by a 10/2 vote, with no abstentions:

• Support: Casliber, Cool Hand Luke, Coren, FloNight, Kirill Lokshin, Newyorkbrad, Risker, Roger Davies, Vassyana, Wizardman
• Oppose: Carcharoth, Rlevse
• Abstain: None
• Recused: None
• Not voting: FayssalF, John Vandenberg, Stephen Bain

For the Committee, Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 01:58, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Discuss this

CheckUser and Oversight elections

The Arbitration Committee has determined that a new round of elections for operators of the CheckUser and Oversight tools will be held in the near future.

(I) The timeline of the upcoming elections is as follows:

• June 20 - Announcement of upcoming election and invitation to request applications
• July 1 - Deadline to request applications
• July 3 - Deadline for submission of applications
• June 20 - July 20 - Committee review of submissions
  • Final decisions on vetting of candidates to be made by July 20
• July 21-27 - Preparation for election
  • July 21-22 - Emails to successfully vetted candidates advising them that they may stand for election, ensuring they are still interested and explaining election expectations (including number of positions open)
  • July 21-27 - Nominees may post a brief statement and questions can begin
• July 28 - August 10 - Voting
• August 11-16 - Committee review of results
• August 17 - Announcement of results

(II) Candidates may run for CheckUser, Oversight, or both.

(III) The following modifications are made to the procedure used for the first election:

• The Arbitration Committee reserves the right to rescind or suspend a nomination for checkuser or oversight privileges at any time during the election/appointment process. Nominations will only be rescinded or suspended in exceptional circumstances.
• Successful candidates will have a minimum of 70% support, in keeping with the Wikimedia Foundation Oversight Policy.
• For the purpose of this election, any editor who has 150 mainspace edits prior to June 15, 2009 may vote.
• Nominations will be posted two days before the beginning of voting. Candidates may post a short statement, and editors may pose questions of the candidates during this period. The voting period will be two weeks.

These resolutions were adopted as follows:

I, by a 12/0 vote with no abstentions:

• Support: Carcharoth, Casliber, Cool Hand Luke, Coren, FloNight, John Vandenberg, Kirill Lokshin, Newyorkbrad, Rlevse, Roger Davies, Vassyana, Wizardman
• Oppose: None
• Abstain: None
• Recused: None
• Not voting: FayssalF, Risker, Stephen Bain

II, by a 9/0 vote with no abstentions:

• Support: Carcharoth, Coren, FloNight, John Vandenberg, Kirill Lokshin, Newyorkbrad, Roger Davies, Vassyana, Wizardman
• Oppose: None
• Abstain: None
• Recused: None
• Not voting: Casliber, Cool Hand Luke, FayssalF, Risker, Rlevse, Stephen Bain

III, by an 8/0 vote with no abstentions:

• Support: Casliber, Cool Hand Luke, Coren, FloNight, Kirill Lokshin, Risker, Roger Davies, Wizardman
• Oppose: None
• Abstain: None
• Recused: None
• Not voting: Carcharoth, FayssalF, John Vandenberg, Newyorkbrad, Rlevse, Stephen Bain, Vassyana

For the Committee, Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 02:18, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Discuss this

Procedure for internal resolutions

The Committee has adopted a procedure for proposing and enacting internal resolutions:

1. All internal resolutions will be proposed for voting on the Discussion board of the arbitration wiki, and will be clearly marked with a section header of the form "Proposal: X" in the case of normal resolutions, or "Urgent proposal: X" in the case of urgent resolutions.
2. The coordinating arbitrator will circulate a daily list of open proposals and their current voting status to arbcom-l.
3. When an internal resolution has passed, it will be announced on arbcom-l. The resolution will then be published to the public Committee noticeboard after a 48-hour waiting period (for normal resolutions) or immediately (for urgent resolutions).

The procedure was adopted by an 11/0 vote, with no abstentions or recusals:

• Support: Carcharoth, Casliber, Cool Hand Luke, Coren, FloNight, Kirill Lokshin, Newyorkbrad, Rlevse, Roger Davies, Vassyana, Wizardman
• Oppose: None
• Abstain: None
• Recused: None
• Not voting: FayssalF, John Vandenberg, Risker, Stephen Bain

For the Committee, Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 02:08, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Discuss this

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Obama articles

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

• Stevertigo (talk · contribs), Sceptre (talk · contribs), ChildofMidnight (talk · contribs), Scjessey (talk · contribs) and Grundle2600 (talk · contribs) are admonished for their edit-warring. Furthermore, they shall be subject to an editing restriction for one year. They are limited to one revert per page per week (except for undisputable vandalism and BLP violations), and are required to discuss any content reversions on the page's talk page.
• In addition, Scjessey (talk · contribs) and ChildofMidnight (talk · contribs) are topic-banned from Obama-related articles for six months, including talk pages.
• ChildofMidnight (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Scjessey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) are not to interact with each other, including replying or reverting of each other’s actions. ChildofMidnight (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Wikidemon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) are not to interact with each other, including replying or reverting of each other’s actions.

Non-compliance to the above are grounds for blocking for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling.

• Wikidemon (talk · contribs) is admonished for his part in the edit warring.
• Grsz11 (talk · contribs) and Tarc (talk · contribs) are reminded to be civil when dealing with hot-button and controversial situations.
• Baseball Bugs (talk · contribs) is reminded to be more civil when dealing with users and to not use talk pages as a forum.

The probation on articles relating to Barack Obama will be reviewed by a group of involved and non-involved editors and administrators to see how effective it has been. The process will last two weeks. After the two weeks elapse, the working group will provide their findings to us and the community, and will outline how the article probation will run in the future.

- For the Arbitration Committee, Mailer Diablo 15:32, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Discuss this

Oversight-L report for May 2009

An analysis of the Oversight-L mailing list for May 2009 has been completed, the results are posted here.

Discuss

For the Audit Subcommittee, Thatcher 16:50, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Provisional suspension of community ban: Thekohser

The Arbitration Committee has provisionally suspended the community ban of Thekohser (talk · contribs) and imposed various conditions and restrictions, the terms of which have been posted on the editor's talk page.

Support: Carcharoth, Casliber, Coren, FloNight, John Vanderberg, Kirill Lokshin, Risker, Roger Davies

Oppose: none

Abstain: Cool Hand Luke, FayssalF

Not voting: NewYorkBrad, Rlevse, Stephen Bain, Vassyana, Wizardman

For the Arbitration Committee,  Roger Davies ^talk 19:46, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Discuss this

Second draft of updated arbitration policy

The Committee has prepared a second provisional draft of an updated arbitration policy for community review. All editors are invited to examine the text and to provide any comments or suggestions they may have via one of the two methods specified on the draft page.

Release of this draft was approved by an 8/1 vote, with no abstentions or recusals:

• Support: Carcharoth, FloNight, Kirill Lokshin, Newyorkbrad, Rlevse, Roger Davies, Vassyana, Wizardman
• Oppose: Casliber
• Abstain: None
• Recused: None
• Not voting: Cool Hand Luke, Coren, FayssalF, John Vandenberg, Risker, Stephen Bain

For the Committee, Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 16:03, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Discuss this

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Seeyou

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

Seeyou (talk · contribs) is banned from editing Wikipedia for a period of one year.

- For the Arbitration Committee, Mailer Diablo 21:50, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Discuss this

Format of requests for amendment

The Arbitration Committee has determined that all requests for the amendment of closed cases are to be made in a standard format:

A request for amendment of a closed case must clearly state the following:

(a) The name of the case to be amended;

(b) The clause(s) to be modified, referenced by number or section title;

(c) For each clause in (b), the desired modification; and

(d) The rationale for the requested amendment, comprising no more than 1000 words.

Any request which does not comply with these criteria will be summarily removed.

This format was adopted by a 10/0 vote, with no abstentions or recusals

• Support: Carcharoth, Casliber, Coren, FloNight, John Vandenberg, Kirill Lokshin, Rlevse, Roger Davies, Vassyana, Wizardman
• Oppose: None
• Abstain: None
• Recused: None
• Not voting: Cool Hand Luke, FayssalF, Newyorkbrad, Risker, Stephen Bain

For the Committee, Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 15:42, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Discuss this

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/A Man In Black

This arbitration case has closed and the final decision is available at the link above. A Man In Black's (AMiB) administrative privileges are revoked. He may reapply at any time via the usual means (RfA) or by appeal to the Arbitration Committee. AMiB is topic-banned from the Article Rescue Squadron. AMiB is placed on a standard editing restriction for one year. Ikip is warned to refrain from making large-scale edits which may be interpreted as canvassing and from directing rude comments to users with whom he is in dispute. This notice is given by a clerk on behalf of the Arbitration Committee. AGK 23:56, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Discuss this.

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Mattisse

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

• Within 15 days of this decision, Mattisse shall, in conjunction with one or more mentors or advisers, submit to this Committee for approval a plan to govern and guide her future editing with the continued assistance of those mentors or advisers. The plan shall seek to preserve Mattisse's valuable and rewarding contributions to Wikipedia while avoiding future disputes and the types of interactions that have been hurtful for herself and others. As a starting point in developing the plan, Mattisse and her mentors or advisors should consider the suggestions made by various users on the workshop page of this case, including but not limited to Mattisse's taking wikibreaks at times of stress, avoiding or limiting Mattisse's participation on certain pages, Mattisse's refraining from making any comments regarding the motivations or good faith of other users, and Mattisse's disengaging from interactions that become stressful or negative. The plan should also address how any lapses by Mattisse from the standards of behavior described in the plan shall be addressed. (Note: As reflected in the findings, Mattisse prepared a plan as required by this paragraph while the proposed decision was pending. See next paragraph.)
• User:Mattisse/Plan (version as of 24 June) is enacted as a baseline. Amendments to the plan may occur by consensus of the mentors, whereby the changes become provisional. At the discretion of the mentors, or if there are significant objections by the community, the provisional changes will be reviewed by the Arbitration Committee at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment.
• Should Mattisse fail to submit a satisfactory plan under remedy 1 within 15 days of this decision, she shall not edit Wikipedia until she does so, except with permission of this Committee. (Note: As reflected in the findings, Mattisse prepared a plan, as required by remedy 1, while the proposed decision was pending. See preceding paragraphs.)

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Tiptoety ^talk 04:14, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Discuss this

Arbitration motion regarding User:Coffee

Per a motion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment:

Coffee's administrator privileges are restored, effective immediately. He is reminded to abide by all policies and guidelines governing the conduct of administrators.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Tiptoety ^talk 15:43, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Discuss this

Ban appeal: Betacommand

Betacommand (talk · contribs) has appealed his community ban to the Arbitration Committee. The committee would appreciate brief (i) comments on the suitability of his possible return and (ii) proposals for possible editing restrictions should the appeal be successful. Private concerns may be raised with the committee by email at: arbcom-llists.wikimedia.org (mailing list info).

For the Arbitration Committee,  Roger Davies ^talk 09:27, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Discuss this

Advisory Council on Project Development convened

The Arbitration Committee, with the endorsement of Jimbo Wales, is convening an advisory group with members invited from across the breadth of Wikipedia. The group will act as an advisory body to the Arbitration Committee and to the community; will consider various issues facing the project and develop ideas, proposals, and recommendations for improving it; and will serve as a forum for the sharing of best practices among the different areas within the project.

The group will not interfere with normal community discussion in any way; since the group will be purely advisory, anything it might recommend will need to achieve consensus normally, as any other proposal would, before it can be implemented. We see this group as a high-level think-tank, coming up with ideas that either the Committee or the community as a whole might choose to pursue. We hope that the concentration of experience and insight in the group's membership will produce discussions with a very high signal-to-noise ratio, and that the differing experiences and perspectives among the members will lead to better-rounded ideas, with fewer flaws caused by certain aspects not having been considered.

The advisory group will also advise the Committee directly, providing us with feedback and ideas from a cross-section of the community that's not otherwise involved in our work.

The group will be provisionally known as the Advisory Council on Project Development, although this is subject to change; editors are invited to send us suggestions for a more permanent name.

At this time, the following editors have accepted invitations to be the founding members of the group:

• Awadewit
• BirgitteSB
• Casliber
• Cla68
• David Fuchs
• DGG
• Drini
• Dweller
• Giano

• Jbmurray
• Jennavecia
• Joopercoopers
• Kirill Lokshin
• MastCell
• MBisanz
• Rootology
• Sam
• Steven Walling

We are still awaiting responses to several additional invitations. We are also looking for a few more members; anyone who would like to be a part of this group is invited to send us a note to that effect.

The initial details of the group's logistics will be announced shortly.

The formation of this group was approved by an 8/3 vote, with two abstentions, no recusals, and two arbitrators considered inactive:

• Support: Cool Hand Luke, Coren, FloNight, John Vandenberg, Kirill Lokshin, Rlevse, Roger Davies, Wizardman
• Oppose: Risker, Stephen Bain, Vassyana
• Abstain: Carcharoth, Casliber
• Recused: None
• Inactive: FayssalF, Newyorkbrad

For the Committee, Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 03:04, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Discuss this

Provisional suspension of community ban: Betacommand

Motion

That the indefinite community ban of User:Betacommand be suspended for as long as he unconditionally agrees to and fully complies with the terms set out below.

Terms

The Arbitration Committee has decided that the community ban of User:Betacommand be provisionally suspended subject to your unconditional acceptance of and full compliance with the following non-negotiable terms:

1. You edit under only one username and agree to regular checkuser inspection.
2. For one year, you are (i) topic-banned from any non-free-content-related work and related talk pages; (ii) subject to a 0RR restriction on any free-content-image-related work and related talk pages; (iii) prohibited from operating bots or running automated scripts of whatever nature; (iv) prohibited from inducing or attempting to induce others to operate bots or run automated scripts; and (v) subject to an editing throttle of a maximum of four edits every ten minutes (excludes reversion of blatant vandalism). After six months, you may apply to ArbCom for a review of the terms of this condition.
3. You agree (i) to a civility restriction and (ii) to not engage in any form of wikilawyering, broadly interpreted.
4. You agree to mentoring for one year by User:MBisanz and User:Hersfold, who will make monthly progress reports by email to ArbCom. Either mentor may, at his sole discretion, block you for short periods if in his opinion you are in breach of any of these conditions. If either mentor or both mentors withdraw, you will cease all editing until replacement mentors are found. The mentorship will be reviewed, and may be continued, at the end of the first year.

Without prejudice to the foregoing, ArbCom may, at any time, by simple majority vote, reinstate your indefinite community ban by determining by motion of any arbitrator that you are (i) in breach of the spirit or letter of these terms or (ii) engaging in conduct injurious to the encyclopedia.

Support

Casliber, Cool Hand Luke, FayssalF, FloNight, Kirill Lokshin, Risker, Roger Davies, Stephen Bain, Wizardman

Oppose

Rlevse, Vassyana

Abstain

Carcharoth, John Vandenberg, NewYorkBrad

For the Arbitration Committee,  Roger Davies ^talk 08:53, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Discuss this