This page is currently inactive and is retained for historical reference. Either the page is no longer relevant or consensus on its purpose has become unclear. To revive discussion, seek broader input via a forum such as the village pump.

This page describes an English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee subcommittee. This information is not strictly relevant if you are actually appealing a block; if you are, please see WP:BASC#Procedure for instructions.

The Ban Appeals Subcommittee (BASC) was formed by the Arbitration Committee to exercise the committee's appellate function over community-authorised blocks or bans. Formerly, appeals of blocks and bans by the community were heard by the full committee; in 2009, BASC was created and this function was delegated to it. Appeals of decisions passed by ArbCom are heard by the full committee; BASC only hears appeals of decisions by the community or its administrators.

The subcommittee is a sub-panel of the Arbitration Committee composed only of elected members of the full committee. BASC is staffed at any one time by several arbitrators, but many other arbitrators also observe the appeals process and participate at their full discretion. Most appeals are heard by two or three subcommittee members and one or more non-member arbitrators.

• Subcommittee members:

1. AGK (talk · contribs)
2. Euryalus (talk · contribs)
3. Seraphimblade (talk · contribs)
4. Thryduulf (talk · contribs)

• Other arbitrators:

Courcelles, DeltaQuad, DGG, Dougweller, GorillaWarfare, LFaraone, NativeForeigner, Roger Davies, and Salvio giuliano.

Subcommittee members take a greater role in communicating with appellants and co-ordinating the subcommittee's workload than the other arbitrators, who are subscribed to the mailing list and assist with acknowledging appeals, offering opinions when the subcommittee is divided or on cases of (professional) interest to them, and providing research (like checkuser data analysis) for open appeals. Appeals are usually decided by a small group of subcommittee members and/or other arbitrators. Occasionally, appeals are decided based on the consensus of an ad hoc group of arbitrators who opine on the appeal. Rarely, appeals are heard by the entire arbitration committee; referred to the community for consultation before the subcommittee rules; or summarily decided by a single arbitrator. Appeals are referred to the full committee at the discretion of any arbitrator.

Deliberations of the subcommittee are not public. The arbcom-appeals-en mailing list (sometimes known as a listserv) is used by the subcommittee to conduct ban appeals. The appeals mailing list was created on 3 February 2012, and replaced the older system of conducting appeals at the full arbcom-l mailing list on 30 July 2012.

The interface page for the mailing list is located here, and the mailing list address is arbcom-appeals-enlists.wikimedia.org. Messages sent to the list by non-members will initially be held for approval by the list administrators. (To counteract spam this happens silently, unlike some mailing lists where messages sent by outsiders receive an automatic reply that the message is being held for moderation.)

Emails to the list will only be forwarded by the mailing list software to the subscribers (who are all arbitrators), but the content of the mailing list will be made available to future subcommittee members through the list archives. Emails may also be distributed to non-arbitrators at our absolute discretion, whenever necessary in order to properly consider the appeal.

The Ban Appeals Subcommittee hears, on behalf of the Arbitration Committee, final appeals of site-bans and long blocks. Our decisions are unanimous; when we cannot unanimously decide an appeal, we defer it to the wider Arbitration Committee where it will be put to a full vote of all active arbitrators. The subcommittee is governed by the committee procedure on "Handling of ban appeals".

An arbitrator's service on the Ban Appeals Subcommittee is part of his or her official service as an arbitrator, and therefore shall not constitute grounds for recusal in a subsequent matter involving an editor whose appeal was considered by the subcommittee.

In addition to this main committee procedure, we adhere to the following standard practices when hearing appeals:

• Appeals may only be made by the blocked/banned editor.
• We do not accept appeals from one editor more often than once every six months for their first two appeals and every twelve months thereafter.
• On receipt of an appeal, a subcommittee member will undertake a brief preliminary review of the appeal (to ensure the account is actually blocked on the English Wikipedia, to ensure they have not appealed to us within the last six/twelve months, and to establish whether the appellant has provided us with the required information – especially their Wikipedia username). If no problems are exposed by this review, a subcommittee member acknowledge the appeal, usually using our #Boilerplate standard acknowledgement email.
• When an appeal is decided, we will not reconsider it until a further six/twelve months have passed – except at the request of a sitting arbitrator, who have a veto of subcommittee decisions.
• We try to decide all appeals promptly. The current average turnaround for appeals is printed at the top of this page. Appellants who not receive a decision when expected (i.e. the average turnaround displayed plus 1–2 weeks) are expected and encouraged to request an update – by e-mail to the subcommittee mailing list.
• At the discretion of a subcommittee member, we announce successful appeals on one or more of: the appellant's user talk page; the log of appeals at WT:BASC; and an on-wiki community noticeboard.
• Also, at the discretion of a subcommittee member, we may announce the result of an unsuccessful appeal on the appellant's user talk page, so that the community will subsequently be aware the appellant has unsuccessfully appealed their block to the subcommittee.
• Any appeal may be included in statistics about subcommittee business and activity. We would not include in these statistics any information we consider confidential.
• We will decline the appeal of any appellant who, in our opinion, provides us with a dishonest or unforthcoming account.
• Appeals may be summarily declined by any arbitrator if it is abusive, obviously dishonest, excessively long and/or convoluted, or otherwise without merit. Summary decisions are made by a single subcommittee member, acting alone. Any arbitrator may restore a summarily declined appeal for reconsideration by the full suncommittee if they disagree with the rationale for declining, or believe the appeal merits further investigation. Summary decisions to decline are used cautiously and infrequently, though when left to stand they are considered to be de facto decisions of the full subcommittee.

Please also be mindful of your real-life privacy when communicating with the subcommittee:

• Arbitrators usually seek to treat your communications, including emails, as private when possible. That said, however, we cannot guarantee against public disclosure for a number of reasons, including potential security limitations. Accordingly, you should not disclose sensitive personal information in your communications with us.

• Once received, your communications may be shared with committee members and – in some limited cases – with third parties to assist in resolving issues or for other purposes. Your communications may be kept for an undetermined period of time for archival or other reasons. The result of your appeal may be made public.

• You should also know that even your return email address may lead to revealing your real-life identity. Many people create anonymised email accounts – for example <your username>@gmail.com, <username>@hotmail.com, and so on – specially for Wikipedia use. Further information about safeguarding your privacy can be found at Wikipedia:On privacy, confidentiality and discretion and Wikipedia:How to not get outed on Wikipedia.

This is sent to all appellants before we begin hearing their appeal:

This is used for some appellants if their appeal is unsuccessful, though a more personal message is usually sent:

The vast majority of appeals are unsuccessful, so there is no standardised text for a successful appeal.