The Signpost

Arbitration report

A slow couple of months

Contribute  —  
Share this
By Bri

Arbitration requests

Amendment requests

Amendment requests adjusting one editor's editing restrictions are not discussed here.

Arbcom member DGG included this statement in his decision: [This case has] helped me settle my position on the more general question of DS (discretionary sanctions): I would abolish them, and then there would be no more such questions. among other merits of terminating the procedure, is that it leads to inappropriate requests for us to involve ourself in deciding content. What is within the scope of arb com is to end the concept of DS, and the only reason I do not now propose it by motion is that I do not think it would have a majority yet.
2) Editors are prohibited from making more than one revert per page per day on any page relating to genetically modified organisms, agricultural biotechnology, and agricultural chemicals, commercially produced agricultural chemicals and the companies that produce them, broadly construed and subject to the usual exemptions.



As part of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Lightbreather, Lightbreather (talk · contribs) was site banned and subject to several restrictions. Following an appeal to ArbCom by email, a motion to unblock Lightbreather and lift the restrictions was posted for discussion on-wiki. The request was closed 18 July after Arbcom decided not to reverse the ban.

Other matters

In this issue
+ Add a comment

Discuss this story

These comments are automatically transcluded from this article's talk page. To follow comments, add the page to your watchlist. If your comment has not appeared here, you can try purging the cache.


The Signpost · written by many · served by Sinepost V0.9 · 🄯 CC-BY-SA 4.0