Activity in arbitration cases continued at a slower pace last week, as the Arbitration Committee closed one case while its caseload did not change significantly, since no new complaints were submitted.

Irate was banned for three months in a decision issued on Sunday. The arbitrators found that Irate violated the policy of no personal attacks on various occasions, including a number after the case began and Irate made a promise to "act in a more restrained manner".

In considering the length of the ban, the arbitrators voted on different options of three, six, or twelve months. Some voted for more than one option, indicating which of the three was their preference. However, since these preferences did not coincide, this caused some confusion when the ruling was issued, but ultimately it was settled that the shorter three-month ban would apply.

In addition to the ban, the decision included a "suspended parole" for personal attacks after the ban ends. This would be a typical personal attack parole for twelve months, but the parole will not be immediately in force. Instead, it is suspended when he returns but can be "unsuspended" by the Arbitration Committee upon notice that Irate continues to make personal attacks (notice can apparently be made using the Committee's new requests for clarification procedure).

One of the parties, Matt Crypto, questioned why the parole was suspended and not imposed directly, saying this made it seem like "a very insubstantial measure". In opposing the suspended parole, arbitrator The Epopt said he expected that "a stiffer sentence will be required to get [Irate's] attention". However, the measure still passed by a vote of 7-1.

Nobody submitted any new cases to arbitration last week, although a few complaints remain outstanding on the requests for arbitration page, either because the arbitrators are still considering the request, or because the request has yet to be processed and either accepted or rejected.

Two new cases have enough votes to be accepted, although the arbitration case pages have yet to be officially opened. One involves Instantnood and a wide-ranging dispute on how to refer to China and Taiwan, while the other is a complaint about abusive behavior by STP. A request against B1link82 also has the required four votes to accept, but presumably will not be heard because the account has been banned indefinitely for vandalism.

The matter involving Instantnood marks the first arbitration case to have AMA advocates representing parties on both sides. Wgfinley and Wally are teaming up to represent Instantnood, while Snowspinner, who has now joined the AMA after previously starting the parallel Association of Member Investigations (see archived story), brought this request for arbitration on behalf of jguk and persuaded the arbitrators to merge a previous stalled request into the case.