Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2019-04-30/Arbitration report

Arbitration Policy – Proposed amendment passes
The Arbitration Committee resolved by motion to amend the "Conduct of arbitrators" section of the Arbitration Policy. The entire motion is reprinted below.

Pursuant to the policies for changing the arbitration policy (Arbitration/Policy), the community had to decide whether to amend the Arbitration policy or not. Specifically, the proposed amendment had to undergo a community referendum, and would only enter into force once it receive[d] majority support, with at least one hundred editors voting in favour of adopting it. That referendum was held at Arbitration/Policy/Proposed amendment (April 2019), and was closed in favor of the proposed amendment.

Portals Issue
A case request was submitted by on 23 March 2019. The request attracted statements from 28 users, amassing more than 100,000 bytes of content. In the end, however, the committee declined the case request on 4 April 2019, with 2 Arbitrators voting to accept the case while 6 preferred declining it. See the archived discussion here.

Bureaucratic Bureaucracy
As highlighted in this issue's news and notes, this month saw the successful RfA of following consensus at a bureaucrat chat. However, asked the Arbitration Committee to review the 'crat chat, arguing that The bureaucrats' actions are not within the mandate they have been given and requesting that the Committee   consider 1) affirming the 2015 election reform RfC, 2) review whether Maxim and possibly other bureaucrats acted within policy, and 3) overturning the bureaucrat chat. The Committee voted 10-0 to decline the case. The full case request can be found here.

Enigmaman
After a hiatus that lasted over 2 months, the Arbitration Committee opened its second case of the year on 13 April 2019. As of writing, the scope of the case is limited to examining The administrative conduct of Enigmaman [and] What action is required, if any. See the prior (archived) discussion at ANI here, and the full case itself here.

Compromised admin accounts
Last month, 's administrative permissions were removed under level 1 procedures "as a suspected compromised account". This month, the committee resolved to return their bit. Furthermore, the Arbitration Committee has taken steps to encourage administrators to improve the security of their accounts.

The Arbitration Committee resolved by motion to amend the "Return of [administrator] permissions" section of the Arbitration Procedure. The entire motion is reprinted below.

Discretionary sanctions
Back in February,  User:Dlthewave/Whitewashing of firearms articles, claiming that this was an Arbitration Enforcement action. The deletion was brought up at Deletion review, during the course of which  the page so that it could be viewed by non-administrators. At issue was whether deletion is a valid Arbitration Enforcement action, and, separately, whether it was proper to consider overturning an action labeled to be enforcing an arbitration decision at deletion review. To clarify proper procedures in such cases, the Arbitration Committee resolved by motion to amend the Standard provision for appeals and modifications in the Arbitration Procedure. The entire motion is reprinted below.

Other news

 * By motion, the Arbitration Committee lifted 's topic ban from pages related to conflict between India and Pakistan, subject to a six month probation period
 * The Arbitration Committee is getting a new bot to assist its clerks. ArbClerkBot, operated by, is currently in trial.
 * The Committee is discussing two requests for clarification and amendment: one relating to Eastern Europe, and the other dealing with Palestine–Israel articles.