Jump to content

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Motions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Wikipedia Arbitration
Open proceedings
Active sanctions
Arbitration Committee
Audit
Track related changes
Shortcuts

This is an archive of the results of all closed motions, amendments and clarifications completed by the Arbitration Committee. For a index of clarification and amendment requests see this index. Motions and clarifications associated with arbitration cases are archived to the talk page of the associated case page as well as being recorded here, such as Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Mantanmoreland#Request for clarification: Mantanmoreland. Prior to July 18, 2008, motions and clarifications without associated arbitration cases were archived in various places.

More recently closed motions on top

2024

[edit]
Topic Opened Closed Outcome Relevant links
Marine 69-71 26 October 2024 7 November 2024 Marine 69-71 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)'s administrative privileges are revoked. He may apply to have them reinstated at any time via a new request for adminship. Motion
German war effort 13 August 2024 30 August 2024 Remedy 3C of the German war effort case ("Cinderella157 German history topic ban") is suspended for a period of six months. During the period of suspension, this topic ban may be reinstated by any uninvolved administrator, as an arbitration enforcement action, should Cinderella157 (talk · contribs) fail to adhere to any normal editorial process or expectations in the topic area. Appeal of such a reinstatement would follow the normal arbitration enforcement appeals process. After six months from the date this motion is enacted, if the topic ban has not been reinstated or any reinstatements have been successfully appealed, the topic ban will automatically lapse. Motion
World War II and the history of Jews in Poland 21 June 2024 8 August 2024 Two motions were enacted: Enacted motion 2 and motion 3
Historical elections 19 July 2024 7 August 2024 Following a request for action based on evidence of alleged harassment and canvassing, the Arbitration Committee directs its clerks to open a case to examine the topic area of historical elections. Subject to amendment by the drafting arbitrators, the following rules will govern the case:
  • The case title will be Historical elections.
  • The initial parties will be:
  • Guerillero will be the initial drafter
  • The case will progress at the usual time table, unless additional parties are added in which case the drafters may choose to extend the timeline.
  • All case pages are to be semi-protected.
  • Private evidence will be accepted. Any case submissions involving non-public information, including off-site accounts, should be directed to the Arbitration Committee by email to Arbcom-en@wikimedia.org. Any links to the English Wikipedia submitted as part of private evidence will be aggregated and posted on the evidence page. Any private evidence that is used to support a proposal (a finding of fact or remedy) or is otherwise deemed relevant to the case will be provided to affected parties when possible (evidence of off-wiki harassment may not be shared). Affected parties will be given an opportunity to respond.
 Motion
Suspension of Beeblebrox 10 July 2024 17 July 2024 The November announcement of the suspension of Beeblebrox is amended to remove the sentence These failures followed a previous formal warning issued to Beeblebrox in September 2021 by the Arbitration Committee concerning his conduct in off-wiki forums. and insert in its place the sentence In September 2021, within the scope of internal Committee discussions, Beeblebrox was advised that his off-wiki conduct was suboptimal. Motion
Durova 4 July 2024 12 July 2024 Principle 2 of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Durova, Private correspondence, is changed from
2) In the absence of permission from the author (including of any included prior correspondence) or their lapse into public domain, the contents of private correspondence, including e-mails, should not be posted on-wiki. See Wikipedia:Copyrights.
to
2) In the absence of permission from the author (including of any included prior correspondence), the contents of private correspondence, including e-mails, should not be posted on-wiki. 		Motion
Skepticism and coordinated editing 18 June 2024 21 June 2024 The Arbitration Committee assumes the block of Rp2006 (talk · contribs). Motion
Conduct in deletion-related editing 30 April 2024 3 June 2024 TenPoundHammer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is indefinitely topic banned from removing all content in an article and replacing it with a redirect (commonly known as a blank-and-redirect, or BLAR). This topic ban will be suspended for a period of 12 months. This topic ban may be unsuspended and imposed onto TenPoundHammer if disruption by BLARing restarts, as determined by any of: (1) a consensus of administrators on WP:AE, (2) at least two arbitrators indicating "support" to unsuspend at WP:ARCA, with no opposition from other arbitrators indicated up to 48 hours after the second support, or (3) a majority of active arbitrators at WP:ARCA if there is opposition as indicated in condition 2. After 12 months, if it has not been imposed, the topic ban will be automatically lifted. motion
Sri Lanka contentious topic designation 11 April 2024 20 April 2024 Sri Lanka, broadly construed, is designated as a contentious topic. motion
Skepticism and coordinated editing 16 April 2024 20 April 2024 For violations of their topic ban and for continued editing which violate the conflict of interest guidelines, Rp2006 is blocked for 1 month. This block may be appealed only to the Arbitration Committee. motion
Armenia-Azerbaijan 3 11 April 2024 18 April 2024 Remedy 3.1 of the case Armenia-Azerbaijan 3 ("Topic ban (Olympian)") is lifted subject to a probationary period lasting eighteen months from the date this motion is enacted. During this period, any uninvolved administrator may re-impose the topic ban as an arbitration enforcement action, subject to appeal only to the Arbitration Committee. If the probationary period elapses without incident, the topic ban is to be considered permanently lifted. motion
Amending the scope of appeals considered by the Arbitration Committee 5 February 2024 14 February 2024 The Arbitration Committee resolves to amend the scope of block appeals it handles, thus updating the guidance from previous motion in 2015, as follows:

The Arbitration Committee hears appeals from editors who are (a) blocked for reasons that are unsuitable for public discussion, or (b) blocked or banned by Arbitration and Arbitration Enforcement decisions. Examples of reasons that are unsuitable for public discussion include blocks (i) marked as an Oversight block, or (ii) based on CheckUser evidence, and where there exists disagreement between checkusers as to the interpretation of the technical evidence. It is expected that blocks marked as a CheckUser block are by default appealed on-wiki; however, the Arbitration Committee may hear appeals of such blocks if there are compelling reasons to hear an appeal in private.

motion
Mzajac 2 February 2024 6 February 2024 Given Mzajac (talk · contribs)'s absence from editing, the Mzajac case will be suspended for a period of three months and Mzajac will be temporarily desysopped.

Should Mzajac return to active editing on the English Wikipedia during this time and request that this case be resumed, the Arbitration Committee shall unsuspend the case by motion and it will proceed through the normal arbitration process. Such a request may be made by email to arbcom-en@wikimedia.org or at the clerks' noticeboard. Mzajac will remain temporarily desysopped for the duration of the case.

If such a request is not made within three months of this motion or if Mzajac resigns his administrative tools, this case shall be automatically closed, and Mzajac shall remain desysopped. If tools are resigned or removed, in the circumstances described above, Mzajac may regain the administrative tools at any time only via a successful request for adminship.

motion
Severity of arbitration remedies 25 January 2024 30 January 2024 Add the following to the Arbitration Procedures as a subsection of "Arbitration Proceedings"

When used in arbitration motions or remedies, the words below should be considered to have the following order of severity:

  1. Remind (weakest)
  2. Warn
  3. Admonish (strongest)
 motion
PIA Canvassing 4 January 2024 20 January 2024 6 Motions were passed as follows:
  1. Since at least October 2023, there has been an ongoing effort by one or more banned editors to canvass discussions within the Israel-Palestine topic area and asking for proxy edits to promote a pro-Israel point of view. Based on the evidence received by the Committee, the following discussions have been targeted:
    The Arbitration Committee would like to thank the editors who reported canvassing. If editors have any additional canvassing evidence, please bring it to the Committee's attention. The Arbitration Committee asks the Wikimedia Foundation for assistance creating technical measures to prevent the ongoing abuse.
  2. Based on information from the checkuser tool and on information received, the Committee determines that Dovidroth (talk · contribs) most likely participated in discussions due to canvassing and made proxy edits for a banned editor. As a result, they are indefinitely banned from Wikipedia. This ban may be appealed immediately after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
  3. Based on information from the checkuser tool and on information received, the Committee determines that Dovidroth (talk · contribs) most likely made proxy edits for a banned editor. As a result, they are indefinitely topic banned from making edits related to the Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly construed. This ban may be appealed immediately after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
  4. Based on information from the checkuser tool and on information received, the Committee determines that EytanMelech (talk · contribs) most likely made proxy edits for a banned editor. As a result, he is indefinitely banned from Wikipedia. This ban may be appealed immediately after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
  5. Based on information from the checkuser tool and on information received, the Committee determines that EytanMelech (talk · contribs) most likely made proxy edits for a banned editor. As a result, they are indefinitely topic banned from making edits related to the Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly construed. This ban may be appealed immediately after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
  6. Based on information from the checkuser tool and on information received, the Committee determines that Homerethegreat (talk · contribs) most likely participated in discussions due to canvassing and made proxy edits for a banned editor. As a result, they are indefinitely topic banned from making edits related to the Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly construed. This ban may be appealed immediately after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
 Enacted motions, ACN Announcement
GiantSnowman 2 January 2024 7 January 2024 Remedy 1.2 of the GiantSnowman case ("GiantSnowman admonished and placed under review") is amended to read as follows:

1.2) GiantSnowman is admonished for overuse of the rollback and blocking functions, and reminded to "lead by example" and "strive to model appropriate standards of courtesy"; to "respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct and administrative actions and to justify them when needed"; to not use admin tools in "cases in which they have been involved" including "conflicts with an editor" and "disputes on topics"; to "treat newcomers with kindness and patience"; and to apply these principles in all interactions with all editors.

With the exception of obvious vandalism or obvious violations of the policy on biographies of living persons:

  • GiantSnowman is prohibited from reverting another editor's contribution without providing an explanation in the edit summary. Default edit summaries provided by MediaWiki or user scripts are not sufficient for the purpose of this restriction. For the avoidance of doubt, use of MediaWiki rollback with an edit summary via a user script such as this one, or via massRollback.js, is permitted.
  • GiantSnowman is prohibited from blocking an editor who has not been recently warned for the conduct in question. For the purposes of this restriction, "recently" is assumed to be within 7 days.

Violations may be reported by any editor to the Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard. GiantSnowman may appeal these restrictions directly to the Arbitration Committee at any time.

Enacted motion
Antisemitism in Poland
Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures § Reliable source consensus-required restriction 		31 December 2023 4 January 2024 Clerks are instructed to add a new section, entitled "Reliable source consensus-required restriction" to the Enforcement section of the Arbitration Procedures with the following text:

The Committee may apply the "Reliable source consensus-required restriction" to specified topic areas. For topic areas with this restriction, when a source that is not an article in a peer-reviewed scholarly journal, an academically focused book by a reputable publisher, and/or an article published by a reputable institution is removed from an article, no editor may reinstate the source without first obtaining consensus on the talk page of the article in question or consensus about the reliability of the source in a discussion at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. Administrators may enforce this restriction with page protections, topic bans, or blocks; enforcement decisions should consider not merely the severity of the violation but the general disciplinary record of the editor in violation.

Remedy 5 of Antisemitism in Poland is superseded by the following restriction:

All articles and edits in the topic area of Polish history during World War II (1933-1945) and the history of Jews in Poland are subject to a "reliable source consensus-required restriction".

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eastern Europe is amended to include the following restriction:

All articles and edits in the topic area of Lithuania history during World War II (1933-1945) and the history of Jews in Lithuania are subject to a "reliable source consensus-required restriction."

Clerks are instructed to link to the Arbitration Procedures in the two restrictions above and are empowered to make other changes necessary to implement this new enforcement procedure.

Enacted motion

2023

[edit]
Topic Opened Closed Outcome Relevant links
Editor conduct in e-cigs articles 2 November 2023 11 November 2023 The Extended Confirmed Restriction is amended as follows:

The Committee may apply the "extended confirmed restriction" to specified topic areas. When such a restriction is in effect in a topic area, only extended-confirmed editors may make edits related to the topic area, subject to the following provisions:

  1. The restriction applies to all edits and pages related to the topic area, broadly construed, with the following exceptions:
    1. Non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace only to post constructive comments and make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive. Should disruption occur on "Talk:" pages, administrators may take enforcement actions described in "B" or "C" below. However, non-extended-confirmed editors may not make edits to internal project discussions related to the topic area, even within the "Talk:" namespace. Internal project discussions include, but are not limited to, AfDs, WikiProjects, RfCs, RMs, and noticeboard discussions.
    2. Non-extended-confirmed editors may not create new articles, but administrators may exercise discretion when deciding how to enforce this remedy on article creations. Deletion of new articles created by non-extended-confirmed editors is permitted but not required.
  2. If a page (other than a "Talk:" page) mostly or entirely relates to the topic area, broadly construed, this restriction is preferably enforced through extended confirmed protection, though this is not required.
  3. On any page where the restriction is not enforced through extended confirmed protection, this restriction may be enforced by other methods, including page protection, reverts, blocks, the use of pending changes, and appropriate edit filters.
  4. Reverts made solely to enforce this restriction are not considered edit warring.
 Enacted motion
Editor conduct in e-cigs articles 13 October 2023 19 October 2023 Remedy 1 of Editor conduct in e-cigs articles ("Contentious topic designation") is rescinded. Any actions previously taken in accordance with the contentious topic authorization remain in force and are governed by the procedures. Enacted motion
Liancourt Rocks 13 October 2023 19 October 2023 The final remedy of Liancourt Rocks ("Contentious topic designation") is rescinded. Any actions previously taken in accordance with the contentious topic authorization remain in force and are governed by the procedures. Enacted motion
Longevity 13 October 2023 19 October 2023 Remedy 1 of Longevity ("Contentious topic designation") is rescinded. Any actions previously taken in accordance with the contentious topic authorization remain in force and are governed by the procedures. Enacted motion
Medicine 13 October 2023 19 October 2023 Remedy 2 of Medicine ("Contentious topic designation") is rescinded. Any actions previously taken in accordance with the contentious topic authorization remain in force and are governed by the procedures. Enacted motion
September 11 conspiracy theories 13 October 2023 19 October 2023 Remedy 2 of September 11 conspiracy theories ("Contentious topic designation") is rescinded due to the topic area being covered by the post-1992 American Politics contentious topic. All actions taken under the rescinded authorization remain in force and are governed by the procedures. Enacted motion
Shakespeare authorship question 13 October 2023 19 October 2023 Remedy 1 of Shakespeare authorship question ("Contentious topic designation") is rescinded. Any actions previously taken in accordance with the contentious topic authorization remain in force and are governed by the procedures. Enacted motion
Macedonia 2 13 October 2023 19 October 2023 The following remedies from Macedonia 2 are rescinded:
  • Remedy 3.1 (All related articles under 1RR whenever the dispute over naming is concerned)
  • Remedy 6 (Stalemate resolution)
  • Remedy 30 (Administrative supervision)

Editors are reminded that Eastern Europe and the Balkans, broadly construed, continues to be a contentious topic.

Enacted motion
The Troubles 13 October 2023 19 October 2023 Remedy 6 of the The Troubles case ("One-revert rule") is amended to read as follows:

A one revert restriction (1RR), subject to the usual exceptions, is applied to all pages relating to The Troubles, Irish nationalism, and British nationalism in relation to Ireland, broadly construed.

Enacted motion
Prem Rawat 8 October 2023 10 October 2023 The Prem Rawat case is amended by striking the remedy designating Prem Rawat as a contentious topic (Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Prem Rawat § Contentious topic designation). Any actions previously taken in accordance with the contentious topic designation remain in force and are governed by the contentious topics procedure. Enacted motion
Mark Ironie and CorbieVreccan
(from case request entitled CorbieVreccan, Mark Ironie, and Tamzin) 		12 September 2023 17 September 2023 Mark Ironie (talk · contribs) and CorbieVreccan (talk · contribs) will be considered a single user for Wikipedia's purposes. When editing the same articles, participating in the same community discussion, or supporting each other in any sort of dispute, these editors must disclose their connection and observe relevant policies such as edit warring as if they were a single account. Enacted motion
WikiProject Tropical Cyclones 28 August 2023 8 September 2023 Remedy 9 of the WikiProject Tropical Cyclones case ("MarioProtIV topic ban") is rescinded. Enacted motion
Paradise Chronicle 28 July 2023 1 August 2023 Paradise Chronicle (talk · contribs) is indefinitely site-banned. Enacted motion
Manning naming dispute 11 June 2023 17 June 2023 The direct quotes linked in Findings of Fact 15, 16, and 18.1 of the Manning naming dispute are replaced by their respective Special:Diff link. Enacted motion
Conduct in deletion-related editing 23 February 2023 26 February 2023 Remedy 11 ("Request for Comment") of the Conduct in deletion-related editing case is rescinded. There are no actions remaining in force from this remedy, so the community are free to conduct and close these and related discussions moving forward. The Committee thanks Xeno and Valereee for their work as moderators; KrakatoaKatie, RoySmith, and TheSandDoctor for their work as closers; and all the editors who participated in these discussions to date. Enacted motion
Armenia-Azerbaijan 3 9 January 2023 27 January 2023 The Arbitration Committee agrees to open a case with the name Armenia-Azerbaijan 3. The parties, drafting arb(s), timetable, and structure will be communicated to the clerks following this motion passing (see ArbCom procedures). Enacted motion
Closing Clarification and Amendment Requests 3 January 2023 8 January 2023 A section titled "Closing" will be added to Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures under "Requests for amendment" with the following text:

A request for clarification or amendment is eligible to be closed by an arbitrator if:

  1. A rough consensus has been reached among arbitrators participating in the request; and
  2. The rough consensus does not require a vote to implement (e.g. modifying the remedy to a case).

The closing arbitrator should include a summary of the rough consensus when closing the request for clarification or amendment.

Enacted motion

2022

[edit]
Topic Opened Closed Outcome Relevant links
2021-22 contentious topics (discretionary sanctions) review 13 November 2022 14 December 2022 See final decision

The above proposals that are supported by an absolute majority of unrecused active arbitrators are hereby enacted. The drafting arbitrators (CaptainEek, L235, and Wugapodes) are directed to take the actions necessary to bring the proposals enacted by this motion into effect, including by amending the procedures at WP:AC/P and WP:AC/DS. The authority granted to the drafting arbitrators by this motion expires one month after enactment.

The Arbitration Committee thanks all those who have participated in the 2021-22 discretionary sanctions review process and all who have helped bring it to a successful conclusion. This motion concludes the 2021-22 discretionary sanctions review process.

Enacted motion to close; ACN announcement; implementation page
Level 2 contacting admins (November 2022) 16 November 2022 19 November 2022 The first step of the Level II procedures is amended to read:

1. The initiating arbitrator will contact the account via e-mail asking the account to contact arbcom-en and leave a message on the account's talk page alerting the account to the email. If email contact is not possible, the initiating arbitrator will leave a message on the account's talk page asking the account to contact arbcom-en.

Enacted motion
Temporary checkuser privileges for scrutineers (November 2022) 5 November 2022 6 November 2022 On recommendation of the Electoral Commission, temporary English Wikipedia checkuser privileges are granted to stewards Sotiale, Martin Urbanec, and Hasley solely for the purpose of their acting as scrutineers in the 2022 Arbitration Committee election. Enacted motion
Reversal and reinstatement of Athaenara’s block 15 October 2022 16 October 2022

The Arbitration Committee directs its clerks to open a case to examine the reversal and reinstatement of Athaenara (talk · contribs)’s block, TheresNoTime (talk · contribs)'s use of the checkuser tool, and connected events. Subject to amendment by the drafting arbitrators, the following rules will govern the case:

  • The case title will be Reversal and reinstatement of Athaenara's block. The initial parties will be Lourdes (talk · contribs) and TheresNoTime (talk · contribs).
  • The evidence phase will be shortened to one week. Parties are particularly invited to submit statements about their own actions.
  • There will be no workshop phase.
  • Non-parties are discouraged from submitting evidence that has already been submitted to the Arbitration Committee through the case request process.
  • Any case submissions involving non-public information should be directed to the Arbitration Committee by email to arbcom-en@wikimedia.org.
 Enacted motion
Level 2 desysop of Athaenara 15 October 2022 16 October 2022 This case request was brought to review the administrative status of Athaenara (talk · contribs), a then-administrator who was indefinitely blocked for personal attacks. Subsequently, the Arbitration Committee resolved to remove Athaenara’s administrative privileges through its Level II removal procedures. This case request is therefore resolved as follows:
Athaenara may request that a case be opened and proceed through normal arbitration processes for further consideration of her administrative status by emailing the Arbitration Committee at arbcom-en@wikimedia.org within three months of the enactment of this motion. The Committee will then decide whether to open a case or resolve the matter by motion. If Athaenara does not make such a request within the three-month period, she will remain desysopped and may regain the administrative tools only through a successful request for adminship. 		Enacted motion
Lightbreather 18 September 2022 21 September 2022 Remedy 1 of the Lightbreather case is suspended for a probationary period lasting twelve months from the date this motion is enacted. During this period, any uninvolved administrator may block Lightbreather (talk · contribs) for any of the behaviors identified in the Findings of Fact or for failure to adhere to any normal editorial process or expectations as an Arbitration Enforcement action for up to 1 year. Any block 3 months or longer should be reported to the Arbitration Committee for automatic review. The committee will consider presented evidence and statements before deciding by motion what, if any, actions are necessary, up to and including reinstating a site ban. In the event that no administrator imposes such a block, the remedy will automatically lapse after twelve months. Restrictions detailed in remedies 2-6 remain in place until actively appealed. Enacted motion
Conduct in deletion-related editing 19 September 2022 21 September 2022 Remedy 11 of the Conduct in deletion-related editing case ("Request for Comment") is amended to ratify the moderators' decision to hold two sequential RfCs and to make other changes. Enacted motion
Muhammad images 17 August 2022 31 August 2022 Remedy 8.1 of the Muhammad images case ("Discretionary sanctions") is rescinded two months after this motion is enacted. Enacted motion
ACN announcement
Rachel Marsden 8 May 2022 15 May 2022 Remedy 2 of the Rachel Marsden case ("Articles which relate to Rachel Marsden") is rescinded. Enacted motion
ACN announcement
St Christopher 22 April 2022 26 April 2022 Remedy 2 of the St Christopher case ("Single-purpose accounts restrained") is rescinded. Any actions previously taken in accordance with this remedy remain in force. Enacted motion
Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures#Clerks 16 April 2022 26 April 2022 The Arbitration Committee procedures is amended to add a new section "Clerks" (level 2) and a subsection entitled "Terms" with the following text:

Trainee clerks will have a term of up to 1 year after their appointment as a trainee to be promoted to full clerk. This term may be extended by the Committee.

Full clerks will be asked to confirm their desire to stay a clerk every 2 years, from the date they were appointed as a full clerk. There are no term limits for full clerks.

Enacted motion
Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures#Opening of proceedings 21 March 2022 29 March 2022 The Arbitration Committee procedure on "Opening of proceedings" (Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures § Opening of proceedings) is amended so the first line reads:

A case is eligible to be opened when it meets all of the following criteria

Enacted motion
Kurds and Kurdistan 16 March 2022 20 March 2022 Supreme Deliciousness' topic ban from Kurds and Kurdistan, broadly construed is lifted subject to a probationary period lasting twelve months from the date this motion is enacted. During this period, any uninvolved administrator may re-impose the topic ban as an arbitration enforcement action, subject to appeal only to the Arbitration Committee. If the probationary period elapses without incident, the topic ban is to be considered permanently lifted. Enacted motion
Timwi 1 February 2022 11 February 2022 The Committee recognizes Timwi's long service, and encourages his continued editing. However, Timwi (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) is warned that the use of the administrator toolset must conform to the policies set by the community. He should especially take note of WP:ADMINACCT, and remember that the toolset is not to be used to further content or policy disputes. The Committee will consider any further misuse of the toolset within a two-year period to be immediate cause for opening de-sysop proceedings. Enacted motion
Transcendental Meditation movement 27 January 2022 5 February 2022 Remedy 7 of the Transcendental Meditation movement case ("Standard discretionary sanctions") is rescinded. Any actions previously taken in accordance with the discretionary sanctions authorization remain in force and are governed by the discretionary sanctions procedure. Enacted motion
Ancient Egyptian race controversy 27 January 2022 5 February 2022 The first sentence of the January 2014 motion in the Ancient Egyptian race controversy case (authorizing discretionary sanctions) is stricken. Any actions previously taken in accordance with the discretionary sanctions authorization remain in force and are governed by the discretionary sanctions procedure. Enacted motion
Obsolete probation-like sanctions 27 January 2022 4 February 2022 Remedies 6, 7, and 8 of the Asmahan case (relating to article probation and discretionary sanctions) are rescinded.
Remedy 2 of the Waterboarding case ("General restriction") is rescinded. Where appropriate, the discretionary sanctions authorized in the American politics 2 case may continue to be used.

Any actions previously taken in accordance with the foregoing remedies remain in force, and appeals and modifications therefrom shall be governed by the standard procedure for arbitration enforcement appeals.

Enacted motion
Article probation revocation 27 January 2022 2 February 2022
  1. Remedy 5 of the Neuro-linguistic programming case ("Mentorship") is rescinded.
  2. Remedy 2.1 of the Occupation of Latvia case ("Article probation") is rescinded.
  3. Remedy 2 of the Shiloh case ("Article-related Probation") is rescinded.
  4. Remedy 14.3 of the Obama articles case ("Articles semi-protected") is rescinded.
  5. The Arbitration Committee clarifies that the article probation referenced in Finding of Fact 3 of the Obama articles case ("Articles placed on probation") and subject to review in Remedy 1.1 of the Obama articles case ("Article probation review") is no longer in effect pursuant to a March 2015 community discussion, but related articles may be covered by remedies in the American politics 2 case.

Any actions previously taken in accordance with the foregoing remedies remain in force, and appeals and modifications therefrom shall be governed by the standard procedure for arbitration enforcement appeals.

Enacted motion
Landmark Worldwide 27 January 2022 2 February 2022 The January 2015 motion in the Landmark Worldwide case (authorizing discretionary sanctions) is rescinded. Any actions previously taken in accordance with the discretionary sanctions authorization remain in force and are governed by the discretionary sanctions procedure. Enacted motion
Scientology 27 January 2022 1 February 2022 Remedy 4.1 of the Scientology case ("Discretionary sanctions authorised") is rescinded. Any actions previously taken in accordance with the discretionary sanctions authorization remain in force and are governed by the discretionary sanctions procedure. Enacted motion
Waldorf education 27 January 2022 1 February 2022 The first sentence of the January 2013 motion in the Waldorf education case (authorizing discretionary sanctions) is stricken. Any actions previously taken in accordance with the discretionary sanctions authorization remain in force and are governed by the discretionary sanctions procedure. Enacted motion
Senkaku Islands 27 January 2022 1 February 2022 Remedy 7 of the Senkaku Islands case ("Discretionary sanctions") is rescinded. Any actions previously taken in accordance with the discretionary sanctions authorization remain in force and are governed by the discretionary sanctions procedure. Enacted motion
Motion: Crouch, Swale 7 January 2022 10 January 2022 Crouch, Swale's editing restrictions, previously modified in 2019, are modified as follows: He may create at most one new mainspace article per month through any process. He is not required to use the Articles for Creation process, and is not permitted to use it to exceed this rate. This restriction includes the creation of new content at a title that is a redirect or disambiguation page. This supersedes the second bullet point of the 2019 motion. Additionally, he may move userspace or draftspace pages to mainspace for the purpose of creating his one article per month, as an exception to his page move restriction. His restriction on frequency of appeals remains in force. Enacted motion
ACN announcement
Resolution by motion of the case request Warsaw concentration camp 1 January 2022 10 January 2022 This request for arbitration is resolved as follows:
  1. The request for an arbitration case to resolve the issue of a potential conflict of interest as originally posted is declined, as the community has resolved the issue presented.
  2. The request for an arbitration case as subsequently revised to address misconduct in the topic area of the Holocaust in Poland is declined at this time, based on the terms of this motion.
  3. Editors are reminded that standard discretionary sanctions and special sourcing restrictions remain in effect for articles relating to the Holocaust in Poland. These provisions are to be interpreted and enforced with the goal of ensuring that Wikipedia's coverage of this important and sensitive topic is fairly and accurately presented based on the most reliable sources available, while maintaining a reasonable degree of decorum and collaboration among editors.
  4. Requests to enforce the discretionary sanctions or sourcing restrictions should be posted to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard (AE) for evaluation by uninvolved administrators. The sanctions and restrictions should be interpreted and enforced so as to promote our content-quality and user-conduct expectations. Enforcement discussions should focus on the accuracy of our articles and the well-being of our editors, not on procedural technicalities beyond those necessary to ensure fairness.
    As an alternative to AE, editors may make enforcement requests directly to the Arbitration Committee at WP:ARCA. The committee will consider presented evidence and statements before deciding by motion what, if any, actions are necessary to enforce proper conduct in the topic area.
  5. The community, particularly including any editors with subject-matter knowledge who have not previously been active in this topic-area, is urged to carefully review the accuracy and sourcing of our articles on the Holocaust in Poland and related topics, with the goal of identifying and addressing any deficiencies that might exist, and implementing any other improvements that may be possible. Appropriate user-conduct is required during all discussions that are part of any such review.
  6. Editors in good standing who have withdrawn from editing in this topic-area, who are prepared to abide by all the relevant policies and expectations, are invited to return to editing.
  7. Should further alleged misconduct affecting our articles on the Holocaust in Poland take place, or be discovered, a new request for arbitration may be filed. The request for arbitration, and any responses to it, should identify specific instances of misconduct that is affecting the content of or editing environment on these articles. Reasonable extensions of the word limits, where warranted, will be afforded to allow the presentation of relevant and significant evidence. In addition to the usual processes, a consensus of administrators at AE may refer complex or intractable issues to the Arbitration Committee for resolution at ARCA, at which point the committee may resolve the request by motion or open a case to examine the issue.[removed by WP:HJP, remedy 11a] In the event that an arbitration case is opened, the Committee will give serious consideration to requests to hold part or all of the case in camera.
  8. Editors are reminded that Wikipedia discussions are about forming a consensus, not convincing everyone to agree. Discussion is an important part of how consensus is reached on Wikipedia and everyone should have the opportunity to express their views, within reasonable limits. It may be taken as disruptive to attempt stalling out the consensus-building process by repeatedly stating an opinion or with repeated demands for re-explanation of that which has already been clearly explained.
  9. Editors participating in Arbitration Committee proceedings are reminded that they are subject to high standards of behavior. Editors are required to act with appropriate decorum. While grievances must often be aired during proceedings, editors are expected to air them without being incivil or engaging in personal attacks, and to respond calmly to allegations. Accusations of misbehavior must be supported by clear evidence (and otherwise not made at all). Statements containing private or sensitive information should be submitted to the Arbitration Committee by email and are subject to the arbitration policy's provisions on admissibility of evidence.
 motion
ACN announcement
2 January 2022 Jehochman (talk · contribs) is admonished for behavior during this case request which fell short of the expectations for administrators and for the behavior of all editors participating in an Arbitration Committee proceeding. Specifically, Jehochman proxied for a globally banned harasser by posting on their behalf a denial of harassment and unsupported claims of collusion among editors in this topic area [1] and for casting aspersions at another editor for userboxes shown on their userpage [2]. The Arbitration Committee acknowledges that Jehochman has since apologized for these comments and has since been desysopped at his request. [3] motion
ACN announcement
MyMoloboaccount (talk · contribs) is warned against casting aspersions towards other editors [4]. This warning should be considered as a sanction for the purposes of awareness in the topic areas of Eastern Europe and the Holocaust in Poland. motion
ACN announcement
American politics 2 6 January 2022 9 January 2022 Atsme's topic ban from post-WWII Anti fascism in the United States is provisionally lifted for a period of twelve months. If at any point before 1 January 2023 an uninvolved administrator feels that Atsme is not able to edit productively in this area, they may re-impose the topic ban. motion
ACN announcement
Scientology 4 January 2022 7 January 2022

Remedy 2 of the Scientology arbitration case, "Church of Scientology IP addresses blocked", is hereby rescinded. Any remaining blocks currently in force may be lifted or appealed according to the unblocking policy.

Enacted motion
ACN announcement

2021

[edit]
Topic Opened Closed Outcome Relevant links
Horn of Africa 14 November 2021 29 November 2021 The already authorized standard discretionary sanctions for all pages relating to the Horn of Africa (defined as including Ethiopia, Somalia, Eritrea, Djibouti, and adjoining areas if involved in related disputes), broadly construed, are made permanent. The committee declines to open a full case. Any further amendments or requests for clarification should be made following the normal method. motion
ACN announcement
Temporary checkuser privileges for scrutineers 1 November 2021 2 November 2021 On recommendation of the Electoral Commission, temporary English Wikipedia checkuser privileges are granted to stewards Sotiale, Martin Urbanec, and Tks4Fish solely for the purpose of their acting as scrutineers in the 2021 Arbitration Committee election. motion
ACN announcement
Extended confirmed restriction omnibus motion 11 September 2021 20 September 2021 In order to standardize the extended confirmed restriction, the following subsection is added to the "Enforcement" section of the Arbitration Committee's procedures:
Extended confirmed restriction

The Committee may apply the "extended confirmed restriction" to specified topic areas. When such a restriction is in effect in a topic area, only extended-confirmed editors may make edits related to the topic area, subject to the following provisions:

A. The restriction applies to all edits and pages related to the topic area, broadly construed, with the following exceptions:
1. Non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace to post constructive comments and make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive. Should disruption occur on "Talk:" pages, administrators may take enforcement actions described in "B" or "C" below. However, non-extended-confirmed editors may not make edits to internal project discussions related to the topic area, even within the "Talk:" namespace. Internal project discussions include, but are not limited to, AfDs, WikiProjects, RfCs, RMs, and noticeboard discussions.
2. Non-extended-confirmed editors may not create new articles, but administrators may exercise discretion when deciding how to enforce this remedy on article creations. Deletion of new articles created by non-extended-confirmed editors is permitted but not required.
B. If a page (other than a "Talk:" page) mostly or entirely relates to the topic area, broadly construed, this restriction is preferably enforced through extended confirmed protection, though this is not required.
C. On any page where the restriction is not enforced through extended confirmed protection, this restriction may be enforced by other methods, including page protection, reverts, blocks, the use of pending changes, and appropriate edit filters.
D. Reverts made solely to enforce this restriction are not considered edit warring.

Remedy 7 of the Antisemitism in Poland case ("500/30 restriction") is retitled "Extended confirmed restriction" and amended to read as follows:

Extended confirmed restriction

7) The extended confirmed restriction is imposed on edits and pages related to the history of Jews and antisemitism in Poland during World War II (1933–45), including the Holocaust in Poland, broadly construed. Standard discretionary sanctions as authorized by the Eastern Europe arbitration case remain in effect for this topic area.

Remedy 5 of the Palestine-Israel articles 4 case (ARBPIA General Sanctions) is amended by replacing item B with the following:

Extended confirmed restriction: The extended confirmed restriction is imposed on the area of conflict.

motion
Palestine-Israel articles 4 28 June 2021 12 July 2021 The phrase "other internal project discussions", as used in Remedy 5 of the Palestine-Israel articles 4 case ("ARBPIA General Sanctions"), shall be construed to include requested moves. motion
ACN Announcement
Interaction ban between Praxidicae and Ritchie333 1 July 2021 3 July 2021 In the interest of furthering discussion around the UCOC, admin sanctions, and other such reforms, the interaction ban between Praxidicae and Ritchie333 is amended after the last sentence to add Parties may discuss the existence of the ban, and examine its implications, but remain forbidden from discussing each other and interacting with each other. motion
ACN Announcement
COVID-19 8 June 2021 16 June 2021 (i) The community COVID-19 general sanctions are hereby rescinded and are replaced by standard discretionary sanctions, which are authorized for all edits about, and all articles related to, COVID-19, broadly construed.
(ii) All sanctions in force when this remedy is enacted are endorsed and will become standard discretionary sanctions governed by the standard procedure from the moment of enactment.
(iii) Notifications issued under COVID-19 general sanctions become alerts for twelve months from their date of issue, then expire.
(iv) All existing and past sanctions and restrictions placed under COVID-19 general sanctions will be transcribed by the arbitration clerks in the arbitration enforcement log.
(v) Any requests for enforcement that may be open when this remedy is enacted shall proceed, but any remedy that is enacted should be enacted as a discretionary sanction.
(vi) Administrators who have enforced the COVID-19 general sanctions are thanked for their work and asked to continue providing administrative assistance enforcing discretionary sanctions and at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard.
 motion
ACN Announcement
Antisemitism in Poland 9 May 2021 Remedy 5 of the Antisemitism in Poland case ("Article sourcing expectations") is amended to read as follows: The Arbitration Committee advises that administrators may impose "reliable-source consensus required" as a discretionary sanction on all articles on the topic of Polish history during World War II (1933-45), including the Holocaust in Poland. On articles where "reliable-source consensus required" is in effect, when a source that is not a high quality source (an article in a peer-reviewed scholarly journals, an academically focused book by a reputable publisher, and/or an article published by a reputable institution) is added and subsequently challenged by reversion, no editor may reinstate the source without first obtaining consensus on the talk page of the article in question or consensus about the reliability of the source in a discussion at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. motion
ACN Announcement
User:Carlossuarez46 1 April 2021 8 April 2021 The "Carlossuarez46" request for arbitration is accepted. Given that Carlossuarez46 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) has retired from the English Wikipedia, this case will be opened but suspended for a period of three months, during which time Carlossuarez46 will be temporarily desysopped.

If Carlossuarez46 should return to active editing on the English Wikipedia during this time and request that this case be resumed, the Arbitration Committee shall unsuspend the case by motion and it will proceed through the normal arbitration process. Such a request may be made by email to arbcom-en@wikimedia.org or at the clerks' noticeboard. If such a request is not made within three months of this motion, this case shall be automatically closed, and Carlossuarez46 shall remain desysopped. Carlossuarez46 may regain the administrative tools at any time only via a successful request for adminship.

motion
ACN announcement
Kurds and Kurdistan 25 February 2021 26 February 2021 The phrase "articles related to" in the topic bans for GPinkerton, Thepharoah17, عمرو بن كلثوم, and Supreme Deliciousness are struck, to clarify that the bans are not limited to article-space. motion
ACN Announcement
Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures 18 February 2021 26 February 2021 Once a case has been accepted, the Arbitration Committee will instruct the clerks on the name, structure, and timetable for a case so they may create the applicable pages. The name is for ease of identification only and may be changed by the Committee at any time. The Committee will designate one or more arbitrators to be drafting arbitrator(s) for the case, to ensure it progresses, and to act as a designated point of contact for any matters arising.

The standard structure of a case will include the following phases and timetable:

  1. An evidence phase that lasts two weeks from the date of the case pages opening;
  2. A workshop phase, that ends one week after the evidence phase closes;
  3. A proposed decision which is published within one week of the workshop phase closing.

The timetable and structure of the case may be adjusted (e.g. a phase may be extended, closed early, added or removed) by the initiative of the Committee, at the discretion of the drafting arbitrator(s) during the case. Drafting arbitrator(s) shall also have broad authority to set case-specific rules regarding the running of the phases (e.g. enforce threaded discussions, set a word limit for participants in the workshop phase) to enforce the expectation of behavior during a case. Parties to the case may also petition for changes to the timetable and structure for a case.

Implementation note: upon this motion passing, Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Procedures#Target_timetable_for_proceedings will be removed, the final paragraph of Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Procedures#Opening_of_proceedings will be struck, and a new section, with the heading "Timetable and case structure", will be added to the Committee's procedures with the above text. In the announcement for this change, the Committee will note its intention to incorporate the analysis of evidence into the evidence phase as part of the standard structure and to make the workshop phase optional. The Workshop phase will be omitted for some cases, such as those examining the conduct of one or two editors.

motion
ACN announcement
Gender and sexuality 17 February 2021 22 February 2021 In order to promote consistency and reduce confusion, the arbitration clerks are directed to create a new arbitration case page under the name Gender and sexuality, with the following sole remedy: "Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all edits about, and all pages related to, any gender-related dispute or controversy and associated people." For the avoidance of doubt, GamerGate is considered a gender-related dispute or controversy for the purposes of this remedy.

Clause (i) of Remedy 1.1 of the GamerGate case ("Discretionary sanctions") is rescinded. Sanctions previously issued in accordance with Remedy 1.1 of the GamerGate case will from this time on be considered Gender and sexuality sanctions. This motion does not invalidate any action previously taken under the GamerGate discretionary sanctions authorization.

In order to preserve previous clarifications about the scope of these discretionary sanctions:

  1. Gender and sexuality discretionary sanctions apply to any dispute regarding the proper article title, pronoun usage, or other manner of referring to any individual known to be or self-identifying as transgender.
  2. Gender and sexuality discretionary sanctions apply to any discussion regarding systemic bias faced by female editors or article subjects on Wikipedia, including any discussion involving the Gender Gap Task Force.
  3. Remedy 15 of the Manning naming dispute case ("Discretionary sanctions applicable"), as amended, is rescinded.
  4. The final clause of the February 2019 Manning naming dispute motion (adding an amendment to the Interactions at GGTF case) is rescinded.

The index of topics with an active discretionary sanctions provision will be updated with the new title, but previous references to GamerGate need not be updated. The arbitration enforcement log, however, should be updated for the current year. For prior years, the new name should be noted along with the old one. The arbitration clerks are also directed to update templates and documentation pages with the new name as appropriate. This motion should be recorded on the case pages of the GamerGate case, the new Gender and sexuality case, the Manning naming dispute case, and the Interactions at GGTF case.

motion
ACN Announcement
MONGO 5 February 2021 12 February 2021 Remedy 1 of the MONGO case ("Links to ED") is amended to read, "Links to, and/or content from, Encyclopædia Dramatica may be removed wherever found on Wikipedia, absent explicit consensus for their inclusion." motion
ACN Announcement
American politics 2 10 January 2021 19 January 2021 Remedy 1.2 of the American politics 2 case ("Discretionary sanctions (1932 cutoff)") is retitled "Discretionary sanctions (1992 cutoff)" and amended by replacing the words "post-1932 politics of the United States" with "post-1992 politics of the United States". Any sanctions or other restrictions imposed under the discretionary sanctions authorization to date shall remain in force unaffected. motion
ACN Announcement

2020

[edit]
Topic Date enacted Permalink to motion Outcome Other relevant links (including ACN)
The Rambling Man 30 December 2020 motion The Rambling Man topic ban from the Did You Know? process (Remedy 9 in The Rambling Man case) is lifted, subject to a probationary period lasting six months from the date this motion is enacted. During this period, any uninvolved administrator may re-impose the topic ban as an arbitration enforcement action, subject to appeal only to the Arbitration Committee. If the probationary period elapses without incident, the topic ban is to be considered permanently lifted. ACN announcement
Antisemitism in Poland 18 December 2020 motion Remedy 4b of Antisemitism in Poland ("Volunteer Marek topic-banned") is rescinded. ACN announcement
Temporary checkuser privileges for scrutineers 20 October 2020 Motion On recommendation of the Electoral Commission, temporary English Wikipedia checkuser privileges are granted to stewards Mardetanha, Martin Urbanec, and Tks4Fish solely for the purpose of their acting as scrutineers in the 2020 Arbitration Committee election. ACN announcement
Portals 15 October 2020 motion Remedies 1 & 2 of the Portals case are temporarily lifted, only at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/BrownHairedGirl 2 and related pages, and only until the conclusion of the RfA process. ACN announcement
Abortion 22 September 2020 motion The one-revert restriction on all articles related to abortion, authorized by the community here and modified by the Arbitration Committee in the Abortion arbitration case, is formally taken over by the committee and vacated. Discretionary sanctions remain authorized for all pages related to abortion, broadly construed. ACN announcement
Amendment to arbitration procedures: prohibition of multiple roles 9 September 2020 motion Based on the outcome of the community discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RFC: Multiple roles for active arbitrators, the Arbitration Committee procedures are amended by adding a new Section 1.6, providing:

To avoid any potential conflicts of interest, current arbitrators may not serve as members of either the Ombuds Commission or the WMF Case Review Committee while serving as arbitrators.

 ACN announcement
North8000 26 August 2020 motion North8000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was restricted by motion in December 2016 (Motion regarding North80000). Recognizing North8000's productive contributions and renewed voluntary commitments, the restrictions are suspended for one year, during which time the restrictions may be re-imposed (individually or entirely) upon request to WP:ARCA if warranted. Any restrictions not reimposed will automatically expire at the end of the one year period. ACN announcement
Climate change 12 August 2020 motion The restriction imposed on Hipocrite (talk · contribs) by Remedy 14 of the Climate change case ("Hypocrite topic-banned") is hereby lifted. ACN announcement
Brahma Kumaris 17 July 2020 motion Remedy 3 of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Brahma Kumaris, "article probation", is hereby terminated. ACN announcement
Genetically modified organisms 2 July 2020 motion David Tornheim's topic ban from glyphosate, imposed as a discretionary sanction on 28 July 2016 and amended on 23 April 2019, is rescinded. ACN announcement
Antisemitism in Poland: Motion (May 2020) 30 May 2020 motion 500/30 restriction: All IP editors, users with fewer than 500 edits, and users with less than 30 days' tenure are prohibited from editing articles related to the history of Jews and antisemitism in Poland during World War II (1933–45), including the Holocaust in Poland. This prohibition may be enforced preemptively by use of extended confirmed protection (ECP), or by other methods such as reverts, pending changes protection, and appropriate edit filters. Reverts made solely to enforce the 500/30 rule are not considered edit warring.
    • Editors who are not eligible to be extended-confirmed may use the Talk: namespace to post constructive comments and make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive. Talk pages where disruption occurs may be managed by the methods mentioned above.
 ACN announcement
Updates to appeals procedure n/a motion Not carried; archived 24 February Archive link
Ricky81682 block appeal 17 January 2020 motion Ricky81682 (talk · contribs) is unblocked subject to an indefinite account restriction: Ricky81682 is restricted to one account, and may not edit anonymously. ACN announcement
Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 11#Crouch, Swale ban appeal 08 January 2020 motion The request for modification of Crouch, Swale's restrictions is declined. Going forward, he may not request relaxation of his restrictions more frequently than once per year, with the next request not taking place prior to 1 January 2021. In addition, he should ensure that there is consensus for any future large creations of articles, prior to making the request for relaxation of his restrictions ACN announcement
Magioladitis 2 08 January 2020 motion Remedy 3: AWB prohibition of the Magioladitis case is lifted subject to a probationary period lasting 1 year from the date this motion is enacted. During this period, any uninvolved administrator may re-impose the remedy as an arbitration enforcement action, subject to appeal only to the Arbitration Committee. If the probationary period elapses without incident, the restriction is to be considered permanently lifted. For clarity, Magioladitis (talk · contribs)' prohibition on making cosmetic edits will remain in force. ACN announcement
The Rambling Man 08 January 2020 motion Remedy 4 (The Rambling Man prohibited) of The Rambling Man arbitration case is vacated, together with the associated special enforcement provisions. ACN announcement

2019

[edit]
Topic Date enacted Permalink to motion Outcome Other relevant links (including ACN)
Antisemitism in Poland 01 December 2019 motion Remedy 2 of Antisemitism in Poland ("Icewhiz and Volunteer Marek interaction-banned") is renamed Icewhiz banned from interacting with Volunteer Marek and amended to read:
Icewhiz (talk · contribs) is indefinitely banned from interacting with or commenting on Volunteer Marek (talk · contribs) anywhere on Wikipedia (subject to the ordinary exceptions).
 ACN announcement
Sexology 23 November 2019 motion Remedy 2.1 of Sexology ("Jokestress topic-banned from human sexuality") is amended to read:
Jokestress (talk · contribs) is indefinitely banned from the topic of human sexuality and gender, including biographies of people who are primarily notable for their work in these fields.
 ACN announcement
Temporary checkuser permission for election scrutineers 25 October 2019 Motion Temporary Checkuser rights are granted to Base, Shanmugamp7, and Einsbor for the purpose of their acting as Scrutineers in the 2019 Arbitration Committee election. ACN announcement
Palestine-Israel articles 4 16 August 2019 motion The committee opens proceedings on pages relating to the Arab–Israeli conflict, naming it Palestine-Israel articles 4. Proceedings will take place in the normal form. Evidence (and related submissions, including at the Workshop) must remain within the proceedings scope. The following matters will initially be within scope:
  • Trends in disruptive editing of related pages, but not the specific conduct of any editor.
  • Difficulties in Wikipedia administrative processes, particularly arbitration enforcement (AE), with regard to related pages.
  • Currently-authorised remedies under any arbitration decision that affect related pages.
  • Prospective amendments to, or replacements for, existing remedies.
  • Other general matters relating to the ease with which Wikipedia keeps order on pages relating to the Arab–Israeli conflict.
 ACN announcement
The Rambling Man 9 August 2019 motion In remedy 9, "The Rambling Man prohibited", the first paragraph is amended to read:
9) The Rambling Man (talk · contribs) is topic banned from making any edit about, and from editing any page relating to, the Did You Know? process. As an exception, he may review any DYK nomination at the direct request of the nominator, but may not engage in subsequent discussion of the nomination. This topic ban does not apply to User:The Rambling Man/ERRORS and its talk page or to articles linked from DYK hooks or captions (these may be at any stage of the DYK process).
 ACN announcement
Discretionary sanctions 16 July 2019 motion The Awareness section of the discretionary sanctions procedure is modified to the following:

No editor may be sanctioned unless they are aware that discretionary sanctions are in force for the area of conflict. An editor is aware if:

  1. They were mentioned by name in the applicable Final Decision; or
  2. They have ever been sanctioned within the area of conflict (and at least one of such sanctions has not been successfully appealed); or
  3. In the last twelve months, the editor has given and/or received an alert for the area of conflict; or
  4. In the last twelve months, the editor has participated in any process about the area of conflict at arbitration requests or arbitration enforcement; or
  5. In the last twelve months, the editor has successfully appealed all their own sanctions relating to the area of conflict; or
  6. They have placed a {{DS/Aware}} template for the area(s) of conflict on their own talk page.
 ACN announcement
Discretionary sanctions 19 April 2019 motion The following text is added to the "Important notes" section of the standard provision on appeals and modifications, replacing the current text of the fourth note:
All actions designated as arbitration enforcement actions, including those alleged to be out of process or against existing policy, must first be appealed following arbitration enforcement procedures to establish if such enforcement is inappropriate before the action may be reversed or formally discussed at another venue.
 ACN announcement
WP:AC/P 10 April 2019 motion

Since November 2018, six accounts have been desysopped under the Level I desysopping procedures as compromised administrator accounts. The Arbitration Committee reminds administrators that they are required to "have strong passwords and follow appropriate personal security practices." The current policy on security of administrator accounts provides that "a compromised admin account will be blocked and its privileges removed on grounds of site security" and "in certain circumstances, the revocation of privileges may be permanent."

The Arbitration Committee resolves that the return of administrator privileges to a compromised account is not automatic. The committee's procedure at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures § Removal of permissions, subsection Return of permissions, is replaced by the following:

Removal is protective, intended to prevent harm to the encyclopedia while investigations take place, and the advanced permissions will normally be reinstated once if a satisfactory explanation is provided or the issues are satisfactorily resolved. If the editor in question requests it, or if the Committee determines that a routine reinstatement of permissions is not appropriate, normal arbitration proceedings shall be opened to examine the removal of permissions and any surrounding circumstances.

In cases where an administrator account was compromised, the committee will review all available information to determine whether the administrator followed "appropriate personal security practices" before restoring permissions. Factors used to make this determination include: whether the administrator used a strong password on both their Wikipedia account and associated email account; whether the administrator had reused passwords across Wikipedia or the associated email account and other systems; whether the administrator had enabled two-factor authentication; and how the account was compromised.

If the Committee determines the administrator failed to secure their account adequately, the administrator will not be resysopped automatically. Unless otherwise provided by the committee, the administrator may regain their administrative permissions through a successful request for adminship.

 ACN announcement
Necrothesp 10 April 2019 motion On March 14, 2019, the administrator permissions of Necrothesp (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) were temporarily removed as a suspected compromised account under the Level 1 desysopping procedures.

Following discussion concerning account security, and pursuant to the procedures for return of revoked permissions, the Arbitration Committee resolves the following:

The administrator permissions of Necrothesp (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) are restored, provided he enables two-factor authentication on his account.

ACN announcement
WP:ARBPOL 08 April 2019 motion Pursuant to the arbitration policy's section on "Ratification and amendment", the Arbitration Committee resolves that the following change to the arbitration policy will be submitted for formal ratification by community referendum:

The final paragraph of the "Conduct of arbitrators" section of the arbitration policy is amended as follows:

Any arbitrator who repeatedly or grossly fails to meet the expectations outlined above may be suspended or removed by Committee resolution supported by two-thirds of all arbitrators excluding:
  1. The arbitrator facing suspension or removal, and;
  2. Any inactive arbitrator who does not respond within 30 days to attempts to solicit their feedback on the resolution through all known mediums of communication.

This amendment to the arbitration policy will enter into force once it receives majority support, with at least one hundred editors voting in favour of adopting it. Until this amendment is ratified, the existing arbitration policy remains in effect.

ACN announcement
India-Pakistan 04 April 2019 motion SheriffIsInTown's topic ban from pages related to conflict between India and Pakistan is lifted, subject to a probationary period lasting six months from the date this motion is enacted. During this period, any uninvolved administrator may re-impose the topic ban as an arbitration enforcement action, subject to appeal only to the Arbitration Committee. If the probationary period elapses without incident, the topic ban is to be considered permanently lifted. ACN announcement
Conduct of Mister Wiki editors 19 March 2019 motion Remedy 2.1 of the Conduct of Mister Wiki editors arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t) (Salvidrim's prohibition from reviewing articles for creation drafts) is rescinded. He may apply for use of the AfC helper script as usual at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation/Participants. ACN announcement
Palestine-Israel articles 14 March 2019 motion The General 1RR prohibition of the Palestine-Israel articles arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t) is amended to read:
Each editor is limited to one revert per page per 24 hours on any page that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. Reverts made to enforce the General Prohibition are exempt from the provisions of this motion. Also, the normal exemptions apply. Editors who violate this restriction may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offense. This remedy may only be enforced on pages with the {{ARBPIA 1RR editnotice}} edit notice.

The community is encouraged to place the {{ARBPIA 1RR editnotice}} on any page that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict.

ACN announcement
Waldorf education 4 March 2019 motion A motion proposing to rescind discretionary sanctions on Waldorf education was withdrawn. –
Manning naming dispute and Interactions at GGTF 22 February 2019 motion Remedy 15 of the Manning naming dispute case was amended. Clause 2 of the February 2015 motion in the Interactions at GGTF case was struck and rescinded. A discretionary-sanctions amendment (including logging instructions) was added to the Interactions at GGTF case. ACN announcement
Eastern Europe and Macedonia 17 February 2019 motion At Amendment II in Eastern Europe, Eastern Europe is replaced as text by Eastern Europe or the Balkans. Remedy 3 in Macedonia is superseded by this amendment. ACN announcement
Crouch, Swale restrictions appeal 10 February 2019 motion Crouch, Swale is permitted to create new pages outside of mainspace such as talkpages and AfD pages. ACN announcement
Ferahgo the Assassin restrictions appeal 31 January 2019 motion
  • The restrictions on Ferahgo the Assassin's editing related to race and intelligence are lifted.
  • The restrictions on Ferahgo the Assassin's participation in dispute resolution are lifted.
  • The interaction ban between Ferahgo the Assassin and MathSci remains in force.
 ACN announcement
Crouch, Swale restrictions appeal 18 January 2019 motion Crouch, Swale is permitted to create one new article (including redirects and disambiguation pages) every seven days in his userspace or the draft namespace before submitting it to Articles for Creation for review. ACN announcement
Lightbreather 9 January 2019 motion The interaction ban between Hell in a Bucket (talk · contribs) and Lightbreather (talk · contribs) taken over in the Lightbreather case is rescinded. ACN announcement

2018

[edit]
Topic Date enacted Permalink to motion Outcome Other relevant links (including ACN)
Committee standard procedures for enforcement 13 December 2018 Motion The following text is added to the "Modifications by administrators" section of the standard provision on appeals and modifications:
Administrators are free to modify sanctions placed by former administrators – that is, editors who do not have the administrator permission enabled (due to a temporary or permanent relinquishment or desysop) – without regard to the requirements of this section. If an administrator modifies a sanction placed by a former administrator, the administrator who made the modification becomes the "enforcing administrator". If a former administrator regains the tools, the provisions of this section again apply to their unmodified enforcement actions.

For clarity, this change applies to all current uses of standard provision, including in closed cases.

ACN announcement
The Rambling Man 13 December 2018 Motion The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that the The Rambling Man arbitration case be amended as follows:

In remedy 4, "The Rambling Man prohibited", the first paragraph is amended to read:

The Rambling Man (talk · contribs) is prohibited from posting speculation about the motivations of editors or reflections on their general competence.

and the third paragraph is amended to read:

If however, in the opinion of an uninvolved administrator, The Rambling Man does engage in prohibited conduct, he may be blocked for up to 48 hours. If, in the opinion of the enforcing administrator, a longer block, or other sanction, is warranted a request is to be filed at WP:ARCA.

A note will be added at the top of the Enforcement section highlighting the special enforcement requirements of remedy 4.

The following is added as a remedy to the case:

9) The Rambling Man is topic banned from making any edit about, and from editing any page relating to, the Did You Know? process. This topic ban does not apply to User:The Rambling Man/ERRORS and its talk page or to articles linked from DYK hooks or captions (these may be at any stage of the DYK process).

The following provisions are added in the Enforcement section of the case:

1) Where an arbitration enforcement request to enforce a sanction imposed in this case against The Rambling Man has remained open for more than three days and there is no clear consensus among uninvolved administrators, the request is to be referred to the Arbitration Committee at WP:ARCA.
2) Appeals of any arbitration enforcement sanctions imposed on The Rambling Man that enforce a remedy in this case may only be directed to the Arbitration Committee at WP:ARCA. The Rambling Man may appeal by email to the Committee if he prefers. This provision overrides the appeals procedure in the standard provision above.
 ACN announcement
Palestine-Israel articles 21 November 2018 Motion The General 1RR prohibition of the Palestine-Israel articles arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t) is amended to read:
Each editor is limited to one revert per page per 24 hours on any page that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. Reverts made to enforce the General Prohibition are exempt from the provisions of this motion. Also, the normal exemptions apply. Editors who violate this restriction may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offense.

Further, the Palestine-Israel articles arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t) is amended to include the following remedies:

Editors cautioned
Editors are cautioned against edit warring, even if their actions are not in violation of the general 1RR prohibition active in the Arab-Israeli conflict topic area. Instead of reverting, editors are encouraged to discuss their proposed changes on the article's talk page, especially when the edit in question has already been challenged or is likely to be challenged.
Administrators encouraged
Administrators enforcing arbitration remedies in this topic area are encouraged to make use of appropriate discretionary sanctions to prevent or end prolonged or low-speed edit wars, even when the general 1RR prohibition has not been violated by any involved editor.
 ACN announcement
Committee standing procedure on functionary permissions and inactivity 30 September 2018 Motion The standing procedure on functionary permissions and inactivity is amended as follows:

Original: Accordingly, the minimum activity level for each tool (based on the preceding three months' activity) shall be five logged actions, including at least one community-requested logged action. Examples of community-requested actions include suppression requests via the oversight-en-wp OTRS queue; CheckUser requests through Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations, those stemming from account creation requests, those made in response to threads at an administrative noticeboard, or posted on a CheckUser's personal user talk page. These activity requirements do not apply to: sitting members of the Arbitration Committee; or holders who have temporarily relinquished access, including CheckUsers or Oversighters who accept appointment to the Ombudsman Commission.

and:

Holders of the permissions are also expected to:

  • Remain active on the English Wikipedia unless they have previously notified the Arbitration Committee of a significant expected absence and its likely duration.
  • Consider temporarily relinquishing their permission(s) for planned prolonged periods of inactivity.
  • Reply within seven days to email communications from either the Audit Subcommittee or the Arbitration Committee about their use of the permissions.

Replaced with:

Accordingly, the minimum activity level for each tool (based on the preceding three months' activity) shall be five logged actions. Consideration will be given for activity and actions not publicly logged, such as responding to requests on the Checkuser or Oversight OTRS queues; participation on list discussions; activity at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations; responding to account creation requests; and responding to Checkuser or Oversight requests on administrative noticeboards, UTRS queue, and user talk pages. These activity requirements do not apply to: (a) sitting members of the Arbitration Committee; (b) holders using the permissions for audit purposes; or (c) holders who have temporarily relinquished access, including CheckUsers or Oversighters who accept appointment to the Ombudsman Commission.

and:

Holders of the permissions are also expected to:

  • Remain active on the English Wikipedia unless they have previously notified the Arbitration Committee of a significant expected absence and its likely duration.
  • Consider temporarily relinquishing their permission(s) for planned prolonged periods of inactivity.
  • Reply within seven days to email communications from the Arbitration Committee about their use of the permissions.
 ACN announcement
Winhunter 6 September 2018 Motion Because Winhunter has been desysopped for inactivity, this case is closed pursuant to the previously adopted motion. Because the automatic desysopping occurred while Winhunter was the subject of a pending arbitration case, he may regain administrator status only by passing a new request for adminship. ACN announcement
BLP issues on British politics articles 9 August 2018 Motion The "Philip Cross topic banned" remedy in the BLP issues on British politics articles case is modified to read as follows:
Philip Cross (talk · contribs) is indefinitely topic banned from edits relating to post-1978 British politics, broadly construed. This restriction may be first appealed after six months have elapsed, and every six months thereafter. This sanction supersedes the community sanction applied in May 2018.
 ACN announcement
Discretionary sanctions procedure 5 July 2018 Motion The following sentence is added to the end of the "Alerts" section of Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions: "Editors may not use automated tools or bot accounts to issue alerts."
The Arbitration Committee is aware of a discussion taking place at the Village Pump regarding issuing discretionary sanctions alerts via bot. As this discussion has a potentially large impact on how discretionary sanctions operate, the Arbitration Committee has decided to clarify existing procedures to note that alerts are expected to be manually given at this time. This is intended as a clarification of existing practices and expectations, not a change in current practice. The Arbitration Committee will fully review the advisory Village Pump discussion after completion and take community comments under consideration. 		ACN announcement
Macedonia 2 17 June 2018 Motion The Arbitration Committee clarifies that Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Macedonia) may be modified by an RfC discussion. The discussion must remain open for at least one month after it is opened, and the consensus must be assessed by a panel of three uninvolved contributors. In assessing the consensus, the panel is instructed to disregard any opinion which does not provide a clear and reasonable rationale explained by reference to the principles of naming conventions and of disambiguation, or which is inconsistent with the principles of the neutral point of view policy or the reliable sources guideline. ACN announcement
Clarification request: The Troubles 8 June 2018 Motion All sanctions placed under remedy 3.2 of The Troubles prior to its replacement with remedy 5 are considered discretionary sanctions. Specifically, the 1RR sanction affecting the topic area is considered a form of page restriction placed as a discretionary sanction, and the additional awareness requirements regarding page restrictions apply. ACN announcement
Civility in infobox discussions 8 May 2018 Motion Remedy 1.1 of the Civility in infobox discussions case is amended to replace dot point 3: *making more than one comment in discussing the inclusion or exclusion of an infobox on a given article. with the following: * making more than one comment in a discussion, where that discussion is primarily about the inclusion or exclusion of an infobox on a given article. ACN announcement
Misc. discussion 25 April 2018 Motion James J. Lambden and Volunteer Marek are now subject to an indefinite two-way interaction ban, broadly construed. ACN announcement
Misuse of Administrator Tools case request 18 April 2018 Motion The Arbitration Committee reminds administrators that they should generally not use administrative tools in situations where good-faith editors disagree about how a content policy should be applied and the administrator holds a strong opinion on the dispute. Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs) is admonished for edit-warring in support of their preferred version of Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity/Outreach/April 2018 ([5][6][7]). He is advised that future similar conduct may result in sanctions. ACN announcement
MapSGV topic ban 7 April 2018 Motion Topic ban lifted ACN announcement
Catflap08 and Hijiri88 18 February 2018 Motion Remedy 5 (Hijiri88: 1RR) of the Catflap08 and Hijiri88 arbitration case is suspended for a period of six months. During the period of suspension, this restriction may be reinstated by any uninvolved administrator, as an arbitration enforcement action, should Hijiri88 fail to adhere to any normal editorial process or expectations related to edit-warring or disruptive editing. After six months from the date this motion is enacted, if the restriction has not been reinstated or any reinstatements have been successfully appealed to the Arbitration Committee, the restriction will automatically lapse. ACN announcement
Doncram 21 January 2018 Motion Remedy 5 (SarekOfVulcan–Doncram interaction ban) of the Doncram arbitration case is suspended for a period of six months. During the period of suspension, this restriction may be reinstated by any uninvolved administrator as an arbitration enforcement action should either SarekOfVulcan or Doncram fail to adhere to Wikipedia editing standards in their interactions with each other. Appeal of such a reinstatement would follow the normal arbitration enforcement appeals process. After six months from the date this motion is enacted, if the restriction has not been reinstated or any reinstatements have been successfully appealed, the restriction will automatically lapse. ACN announcement
Discretionary sanctions 15 January 2018 Motion The Page restrictions section of the discretionary sanctions procedure is modified to the following:

Any uninvolved administrator may impose on any page or set of pages relating to the area of conflict page protection, revert restrictions, prohibitions on the addition or removal of certain content (except when consensus for the edit exists), or any other reasonable measure that the enforcing administrator believes is necessary and proportionate for the smooth running of the project. The enforcing administrator must log page restrictions they place.

Best practice is to Enforcing administrators must add an editnotice to restricted pages where appropriate, using the standard template ({{ds/editnotice}}), and should add a notice to the talk page of restricted pages.

Editors who ignore or breach page restrictions may be sanctioned by any uninvolved administrator provided that, at the time the editor ignored or breached a page restriction:

  1. The editor was aware of discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict, and
  2. There was an editnotice ({{ds/editnotice}}) on the restricted page which specified the page restriction.

Editors using mobile devices may not see edit notices. Administrators should consider whether an editor was aware of the page restriction before sanctioning them.

The Awareness section of the discretionary sanctions procedure is modified to the following:

No editor may be sanctioned unless they are aware that discretionary sanctions are in force for the area of conflict. An editor is aware if:

  1. They were mentioned by name in the applicable Final Decision; or
  2. They have ever been sanctioned within the area of conflict (and at least one of such sanctions has not been successfully appealed); or
  3. In the last twelve months, the editor has given and/or received an alert for the area of conflict; or
  4. In the last twelve months, the editor has participated in any process about the area of conflict at arbitration requests or arbitration enforcement; or
  5. In the last twelve months, the editor has successfully appealed all their own sanctions relating to the area of conflict.

There are additional requirements in place when sanctioning editors for breaching page restrictions.

ACN announcement
Palestine-Israel articles 4 January 2018 Motion The General 1RR prohibition of the Palestine-Israel articles arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t) is amended to read:
Each editor is limited to one revert per page per 24 hours on any page that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. If an edit is reverted by another editor, its original author may not restore it within 24 hours of the first revert made to their edit. Reverts made to enforce the General Prohibition are exempt from the provisions of this motion. Also, the normal exemptions apply. Editors who violate this restriction may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offense.
 ACN announcement
Hijiri88 2 January 2018 Motion Remedy 3 (Hijiri88: Topic ban (I)) of the Catflap08 and Hijiri88 arbitration case is suspended for a period of six months. During the period of suspension, this restriction may be reinstated by any uninvolved administrator, as an arbitration enforcement action, should Hijiri88 fail to adhere to any normal editorial process or expectations in the area defined in the topic ban remedy. After six months from the date this motion is enacted, if the restriction has not been reinstated or any reinstatements have been successfully appealed to the Arbitration Committee, the restriction will automatically lapse. ACN announcement

2017

[edit]
Topic Opened Closed Outcome Relevant links
Crouch, Swale ban appeal 26 December 2017 31 December 2017 Crouch, Swale (talk · contribs)'s site ban is rescinded and the following indefinite restrictions are imposed:
  • one account restriction
  • topic ban from discussions on geographic naming conventions
  • prohibition on moving or renaming pages (except within their own userspace)
  • prohibition on creating new pages, including creating articles on pages where one didn't previously exist (except within their own userspace and talk pages of existing pages in any namespace).

The standard provisions on enforcement and appeals and modifications apply to these restrictions. If a fifth is placed under these restrictions, the blocking administrator must notify the Arbitration Committee of the block via a Request for Clarification and Amendment so that the unban may be reviewed. Crouch, Swale may appeal these unban conditions every 6 months from the date this motion passes.

Motion
Crosswiki issues 31 October 2017 27 November 2017 (A) Whether and how information from Wikidata should be used on English Wikipedia is an ongoing subject of editorial disputes, and is not specifically addressed by current English Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Aspects of these disputes may include disagreements over who should decide whether and when Wikidata content should be included, the standards to be used in making those decisions, and the proper role, if any, of the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) in connection with this issue.
(B) To allow the English Wikipedia community to decide the policy issues involved, the Arbitration Committee recommends that a request for comment (RfC) be opened.
(C) While the RfC is being prepared and it is pending, editors should refrain from taking any steps that might create a fait accompli situation (i.e., systematic Wikidata-related edits on English Wikipedia that would be difficult to reverse without undue effort if the RfC were to decide that a different approach should be used).
(D) Standard discretionary sanctions are authorised for all discussions about the integration of Wikidata on the English Wikipedia for a period of one year from the enactment of this motion, unless ended earlier by the Arbitration Committee.
(E) Editors should abide by high standards of user conduct, including remaining civil and avoiding personal attacks, in the RfC and in all other comments on Wikidata-related issues. Editors who are knowledgeable and/or passionate about the issues are encouraged to participate and share their expertise and opinions, but no individual editor's comments should overwhelm or "bludgeon" the discussion.

(F) The request for an arbitration case is declined at this time, but may be reopened if issues suitable for ArbCom remain following the RfC.

Motion
Temporary checkuser permission for election scrutineers 24 November 2017 26 November 2017 Temporary Checkuser rights are granted to Matiia, RadiX, Shanmugamp7, and (alternate if necessary) Mardetanha for the purpose of their acting as Scrutineers in the 2017 Arbitration Committee election. Motion
Sexology 8 Nov 2017 25 Nov 2017 Remedy 4.1 ("Discretionary sanctions") of the Sexology case is rescinded. Any sanctions or other restrictions imposed under this remedy to date shall remain in force unaffected. motion
The Rambling Man prohibition amendment 25 Jul 2017 18 Sep 2017 Remedy 4 (The Rambling Man prohibited) of the The Rambling Man arbitration case is modified as follows:
The Rambling Man (talk · contribs) is prohibited from insulting and/or belittling other editors.

is amended to read

The Rambling Man (talk · contribs) is prohibited from posting speculation about the motivations of editors or reflections on their general competence
 Announcement
Soap unbanned 19 Aug 17 In 2015, Soap (talk · contribs) was desysopped and banned indefinitely. Following a successful appeal to the Arbitration Committee, he is unbanned. As indicated in the original announcement, he may only regain his administrative tools following approval from the Arbitration Committee, and a successful request for adminship. Announcement
ARBPIA "consensus" provision modified 14 March 2017 18 May 2017 The consensus required restriction in the Palestine-Israel articles case is modified to read as follows:
Editors are limited to one revert per page per day on any page that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. In addition, editors are required to obtain consensus through discussion before restoring a reverted edit. Each editor is limited to one revert per page per 24 hours on any page that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. If an edit is reverted by another editor, its original author may not restore it within 24 hours. Reverts made to enforce the General Prohibition are exempt from the revert limit the provisions of this motion. Also, the normal exemptions apply. Editors who violate this restriction may be blocked without warning by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offense.
 Notification
Standardising arbitration enforcement procedures 15 April 2017 21 April 2017 The following sections are moved (word for word) from the Arbitration Committee's discretionary sanctions procedure to the Committee's procedures page (under the "Enforcement" heading) and as such apply to all arbitration enforcement actions (including discretionary sanctions and actions enforcing arbitration case remedies):

A note is to be placed prominently on the discretionary sanctions procedure noting that the Enforcement provisions on the Committee's procedures page also apply to the application and enforcement of discretionary sanctions.

The "Appeals and modifications" in the discretionary sanctions procedure is modified to reflect the current version standard provision for appeals and modifications, including changes made to it in future amendments (Template:Arbitration standard provisions may be used).

Notification
OccultZone and others 15 April 2017 21 April 2017 The indefinite siteban of OccultZone (talk · contribs) imposed in remedy 1 of the "OccultZone and others" arbitration case is rescinded with the following restrictions:
  • OccultZone's topic ban from remedy 2 and one account restriction from remedy 3 in the "OccultZone and others" case remain in effect.
  • OccultZone is indefinitely topic banned from filing, commenting in or discussing sockpuppet investigations. If OccultZone has a reasonable suspicion that a user may be engaging in sockpuppetry, they should raise the issue with the functionaries, an admin, or a sockpuppet investigations clerk, who can then file a sockpuppet investigation if, in their opinion, one is warranted.
  • OccultZone is indefinitely topic banned from making any edits related to, or editing any page about South Asian topics, broadly construed.
  • OccultZone is indefinitely subject to a 1RR editing restriction.
  • OccultZone is indefinitely restricted from:
  • Raising any issue at more than one venue, whatever that venue is (with the exception of bringing a case or clarification/amendment request to ArbCom).
  • Raising any issue at a venue other than where it is being discussed.
For clarity, OccultZone is not restricted from:
  • Commenting in multiple venues if an issue is moved (by himself or others).
  • Commenting in multiple venues if a single issue has been raised in multiple places by other users.
  • Notifying users or pages of discussions in other venues.

These restrictions may be appealed to the Committee in no less than six months.

Notification
Jytdog 21 February 2017 The topic ban from "all matters related to COI editing" imposed on Jytdog (talk · contribs) as part of the August 2016 unblock conditions is lifted. However, Jytdog is strongly warned any subsequent incident in which you reveal non-public information about another user will result in an indefinite block or siteban by the Arbitration Committee. To avoid ambiguity, "non-public information" includes (but is not limited to) any information about another user including legal names and pseudonyms, workplace, job title, or contact details, which that user has not disclosed themselves on the English Wikipedia or other WMF project. Notification
Article titles and capitalization 11 February 2017 In remedy 4.2 of the 2012 Article titles and capitalisation case, standard discretionary sanctions were authorized for all pages related to the English Wikipedia Manual of Style and article titles policy, broadly construed. By way of clarification, the scope of this remedy refers to discussions about the policies and guidelines mentioned, and does not extend to individual move requests, move reviews, article talk pages, or other venues at which individual article names may be discussed. Disruption in those areas should be handled by normal administrative means. Notification
GamerGate 8 February 2017 The topic-ban placed on NorthBySouthBaranof in the GamerGate case is terminated. Discretionary sanctions remain authorized to address any user misconduct in the relevant topic-area. Notification
Ed Poor 2 6 February 2017 In remedy 1.1 of the 2006 Ed Poor 2 case, Ed Poor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was placed on probation. Under the terms of the probation, he was banned from two topics in 2008 and 2009. The probation and topic bans under its terms are now rescinded. Notification
JustBerry 6 February 2017 JustBerry (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was unblocked by the Ban Appeals Subcommittee in July 2013 with a one-account restriction. Following a successful appeal to the Arbitration Committee, the one-account restriction for JustBerry is rescinded. They are reminded that any alternate accounts and/or bots must adhere to WP:SOCK#LEGIT and WP:BOTPOL. Notification
Yunshui 25 January 2017 Yunshui (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), voluntarily retired in November 2015. Their checkuser and oversight permissions were removed without prejudice against requesting reinstatement in the future. They are reappointed as a checkuser and oversighter following a request to the committee for the return of both permissions. Notification
Race and intelligence 21 January 2017 Mathsci (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was unbanned in April 2016 under the condition that he refrain from making any edit about, and from editing any page relating to the race and intelligence topic area, broadly construed. This restriction is now rescinded. The interaction bans to which Mathsci is a party remain in force. Notification

2016

[edit]
Topic Opened Closed Outcome Relevant links
Palestine-Israel articles 26 December 2016 The general 1RR restriction in the Palestine-Israel articles case is modified to read as follows:
Editors are limited to one revert per page per day on any page that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. In addition, editors are required to obtain consensus through discussion before restoring a reverted edit. Reverts made to enforce the General Prohibition are exempt from the revert limit. Also, the normal exemptions apply. Editors who violate this restriction may be blocked without warning by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offense.
 Notification
Palestine-Israel articles 3 26 December 2016 Remedy 2 (General Prohibition) is modified to read as follows:
All IP editors, accounts with fewer than 500 edits, and accounts with less than 30 days tenure are prohibited from editing any page that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. This prohibition is preferably enforced by the use of extended confirmed protection, but where that is not feasible, it may also be enforced by reverts, page protections, blocks, the use of pending changes, and appropriate edit filters.
The sole exceptions to this prohibition are:
  1. Editors who are not eligible to be extended-confirmed may use the Talk: namespace to post constructive comments and make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive. Talk pages where disruption occurs may be managed by any of the above methods. This exception does not apply to other internal project discussions such as AfDs, WikiProjects, noticeboard discussions, etc.
  2. Editors who are not eligible to be extended-confirmed may not create new articles, but administrators may exercise discretion when deciding how to enforce this remedy on article creations. Deletion of new articles by editors who do not meet the criteria is permitted but not required.
 Notification
Gun control 21 December 2016 North8000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was site-banned in 2014 in the Gun Control case. He was topic-banned from the gun control topic area in the same case. Prior to this, he had been topic-banned from the subject of the Tea Party movement in the Tea Party case in 2013, and had agreed to a one-year voluntary restriction from the homophobia article and its talk page in 2012.

North8000 is unbanned with the following restrictions:

  • His 2014 topic ban from gun control remains in force.
  • His 2013 topic ban from the Tea Party movement is broadened to encompass post-1932 American politics, with the scope defined by the American politics discretionary sanctions introduced in the 2015 American politics 2 case.
  • His 2012 restriction from homophobia is adopted by the committee as a topic ban.
  • He is restricted to one account.

These restrictions are to be enforced under the standard enforcement and appeals and modifications provisions and may be appealed to the committee after six months.

Notification
Austrian economics 19 December 2016 The discretionary sanctions on Austrian economics are rescinded. Notification
Darkfrog24 12 December 2016 Darkfrog24's block appeal is denied. Notification
Fæ 12 December 2016 Fæ's topic ban is suspended for six months. Notification
Ricky81682 5 October 2016 For abuse of multiple accounts and failure to remain accountable, Ricky81682 is desysoped and may regain the tools via a successful request for adminship. Notification
GamerGate 22 October 2016 Since Zad68 (who imposed extended confirmed protection of Talk:Gamergate controversy as a discretionary sanction) is currently inactive, the discretionary sanction on Talk:Gamergate controversy (not the article) is lifted to allow the community to modify the protection level in accordance with the Wikipedia:Protection policy. Notification
Doncram 5 November 2016 Point 4 (Doncram restricted) of the motion in May 2016 is suspended for a period of six months. During the period of suspension, this restriction may be reinstated by any uninvolved administrator as an arbitration enforcement action should Doncram fail to adhere to Wikipedia editing standards in the National Register of Historic Places topic area, broadly construed. Appeal of such a reinstatement would follow the normal arbitration enforcement appeals process. After six months from the date this motion is enacted, if the restriction has not been reinstated or any reinstatements have been successfully appealed, the restriction will automatically lapse. Notification
Race and intelligence amendment request 12 August 2016 1 September 2016 Ferahgo the Assassin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was topic-banned from the race and intelligence topic area in October 2010, site-banned in May 2012, and unbanned with editing restrictions in March 2014.
  • The March 2014 requirement that Ferahgo is restricted to "editing articles about the palaeontology of birds and dinosaurs and editing any talk or process pages reasonably and directly associated with improving the quality of those articles" is rescinded. The other restrictions that accompanied the unban remain in force.
  • The 2010 topic ban from the race and intelligence topic, originally issued under discretionary sanctions, remains in force and is adopted by the arbitration committee. This topic ban may be appealed via WP:ARCA.
  • The two-way interaction ban between Ferahgo and Mathsci (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) remains in force.
 Motion
GoodDay amendment request 10 July 2016 11 August 2016 Remedy 1.1 (GoodDay topic-banned from diacritics) in the GoodDay arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t) is suspended for the period of one year from the date of passage of this motion. During the period of suspension, any uninvolved administrator may, as an arbitration enforcement action, reinstate the topic ban on GoodDay should GoodDay fail to follow Wikipedia behavior and editing standards while editing concerning diacritics, broadly construed, or participating in any discussions about the same. In addition, the topic ban will be reinstated should GoodDay be validly blocked by any uninvolved administrator for misconduct related to diacritics, broadly construed. Such a reinstatement may only be appealed to the Arbitration Committee. After one year from the date of passage of this motion, if the ban has not been reinstated, or any reinstatements have been successfully appealed, the topic ban will be vacated. Archived discussion
Extendedconfirmed users 11 April 2016 15 May 2016 Administrators are not permitted to remove the extendedconfirmed user group as a discretionary sanction.

Administrators must not remove the extendedconfirmed user group as means of bypassing defined arbitration enforcement procedures (for example, removing the user group as a normal administrative action to avoid banning an editor from the Gamergate controversy article).

Enacted motion & Archived copy
Extended confirmed protection 11 April 2016 15 May 2016 On April 5, the rollout of the new extendedconfirmed user group began. This group is being automatically applied to accounts meeting both of the following criteria: at least 500 edits, registered at least 30 days ago. A corresponding new protection level, currently called "extended confirmed protection", has been implemented that restricts editing to members of this user group.

Extended confirmed protection may only be applied in response to persistent sockpuppetry or continued use of new, disruptive accounts where other methods (such as semi protection) have not controlled the disruption. This provision does not apply to a page or topic area which has been placed under 30/500 protection by the Arbitration Committee.

Enacted motion & Archived copy
Doncram case amendment 10 April 2016 11 May 2016 The Doncram arbitration case is amended as follows: Motion
Oversight block appeals (Oversight-l) 27 March 2016 4 May 2016 Appeals of blocks that have been marked by an oversighter as oversight blocks should be sent to the oversight team via email (Oversight-l@lists.wikimedia.org) to be decided by the English Wikipedia oversighters, or to the Arbitration Committee. Blocks may still be marked by the blocking oversighter as appealable only to the Arbitration Committee, per the 2010 statement, in which case appeals must only be directed to the Arbitration Committee. Motion
Amendment to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Ottava Rima restrictions (Ottava unbanned 9 November 2009, 22 July 2010 19 April 2016 Following a successful appeal, the amendment to the Ottava Rima restrictions case is rescinded, and Ottava Rima is unbanned. His participation on the English Wikipedia is strictly limited to:
  • Editing Lamia (poem), its talk page, and any future GA, FA, or peer review of this article
  • Drafting articles or edits to articles within his own userspace, which may be moved into the mainspace by other unrestricted editors
  • Editing his own user talk page, with the additional restriction that he may not use his talk page to discuss other editors

Additionally, he is limited to one revert on a single page in any 24 hour period (1RR), subject to the standard exemptions. Any edits outside of these boundaries are violations of the unban conditions, as is the use of the Wikipedia email feature.

Anyone found to be goading or baiting him may be two-way interaction banned, as an arbitration enforcement action, for no longer than one month. Enforcement blocks (including of Ottava) may be no longer than three days for the first block, and up to one month for repeated violations.

Should Ottava violate these restrictions he may be blocked, as an arbitration enforcement action, for up to one month for the first violation by a consensus of uninvolved administrators. If, after the first block, he violates the restrictions again, the siteban may be reinstated by a consensus of uninvolved administrators and he is to be blocked indefinitely with no email or talk page access.

[8]
Amendment to Race and Intelligence case (Mathsci unbanned) N/A 10 April 2016 Following a successful appeal to the Committee the October 2013 amendment to the Race and intelligence case is rescinded and Mathsci (talk · contribs) is unbanned from the English Wikipedia. The unban has been granted on the condition that Mathsci continue to refrain from making any edit about, and from editing any page relating to the race and intelligence topic area, broadly construed. This is to be enforced as a standard topic ban. The following editing restrictions are in force indefinitely:

This motion is to be enforced under the enforcement clauses of the Race and intelligence case.

Motion
Deskana's Activity N/A 17 February 2016 In accordance with the standing procedure on inactivity, the checkuser permissions of Deskana (talk · contribs) are removed. The committee thanks them for their service. Motion
Future Perfect at Sunrise case request 15 January 2016 26 January 2016 The Committee will communicate with the Foundation about legal options for long-term abuse cases, and recommends that the community develop best practices for communication among editors handling harassing material; many editors in good standing may be unfamiliar with specific known abusers and their activities. Notes and diffs concerning Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and The Rambling Man (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). Full case declined. Motion
Amendment request for genetically modified organisms 2 January 2016 19 January 2016 The Discretionary Sanctions remedy which currently says that "Standard discretionary sanctions are authorised for all pages relating to genetically modified organisms, agricultural biotechnology, and agricultural chemicals, broadly construed" are replaced with "Standard discretionary sanctions are authorised for all pages relating to genetically modified organisms, commercially produced agricultural chemicals and the companies that produce them, broadly construed." Motion
Motion to reappoint Floquenbeam an Oversighter 23 January 2016 26 January 2016 Floquenbeam (talk · contribs), who resigned from the Arbitration Committee and voluntarily gave up the Oversight permission in July 2014, is reappointed an Oversighter following a request to the Committee for the permission to be restored. Archived discussion

2015

[edit]
Topic Opened Closed Outcome Relevant links
Clarification request for Genetically modified organisms 29 December 2015 6 January 2016 DrChrissy's topic ban which currently states that "DrChrissy is indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to genetically modified plants and agricultural chemicals, broadly interpreted; appeals of this ban may be requested no earlier than twelve months since the date the case closed" is replaced with "DrChrissy is indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to genetically modified organisms, commercially produced agricultural chemicals, and the companies that produce them, broadly interpreted; appeals of this ban may be requested no earlier than twelve months since the date the case closed." Motion
Unban of Nadirali 14 December 2015 23 December 2015 Nadirali (talk · contribs)'s topic ban from "India, Pakistan and Afghanistan broadly construed" that is part of their unban conditions is suspended for a period of one year. During the period of suspension, this topic ban may be reinstated by any uninvolved administrator as an arbitration enforcement action should Nadirali fail to adhere to Wikipedia editing standards in the area previously covered by the topic ban. Appeal of such a reinstatement would follow the normal arbitration enforcement appeals process. After one year from the date of passage of this motion, if the topic ban has not been reinstated or any reinstatements have been successfully appealed, the topic ban will be lifted. Motion
Checkuser appointments for ACE2015 17 November 2015 19 November 2015 For the purpose of scrutineering the 2015 Arbitration Committee elections, stewards Mardetanha, Shanmugamp7, and Einsbor, appointed as scrutineers, are granted temporary local CheckUser permissions effective from the time of the passage of this motion until the certification of the election results. Motion
Removal of Unused Sanctions 13 September 2015 19 November 2015 Every so often, it becomes reasonable to terminate sanctions that are no longer necessary,
  1. Remedy 1 of the Lapsed Pacifist 2 case is rescinded;
  2. Remedy 2 of the Mantanmoreland case is rescinded;
  3. Remedy 1 of the Waterboarding case is rescinded;
  4. Remedy 1 of the Vivaldi case is rescinded;
  5. Nothing in this motion provides grounds for appeal of remedies or restrictions imposed while article probations for the foregoing cases were in force. Such appeals or requests to lift or modify such sanctions may be made under the same terms as any other appeal;
  6. In the event that disruptive editing resumes in any of these topic-areas, a request to consider reinstating discretionary sanctions in that topic-area may be made on the clarifications and amendments page.
 Motion
Level I Desysop of Seemingly Compromised Accounts 04 November 2015 04 November 2015 The seemingly compromised accounts User:OhanaUnited and User:Salvidrim! are temporarily desysoped in accordance with Level I procedures for removing administrative tools.
Supporting: NativeForeigner, Roger Davies, Euryalus, DeltaQuad
Opposing: None
Abstaining: None
 Motion
Overlap of sanctions 30 October 2015
  1. Remedy 2 of the Bluemarine case is rescinded. The discretionary sanctions authorised for the American Politics 2 case and the Editing of Biographies of Living Persons case continue to apply in this topic area;
  2. Remedy 2.1 of the Election case is rescinded. The discretionary sanctions authorised for the American Politics 2 case continue to apply in this topic area;
  3. Remedies 4 and 5 of the Free Republic case are rescinded. The discretionary sanctions authorised for the American Politics 2 case continue to apply in this topic area;
  4. Remedy 1 of the Neuro-linguistic programming case is rescinded. The discretionary sanctions authorised for the Pseudoscience case continue to apply in this topic area;
  5. Remedy 1.1 of the Tea Party Movement case is rescinded. The discretionary sanctions authorised for the American Politics 2 case continue to apply in this topic area;
  6. Nothing in this motion provides grounds for appeal of remedies or restrictions imposed while discretionary sanctions or article probations for the foregoing cases were in force. Such appeals or requests to lift or modify such sanctions may be made under the same terms as any other appeal.
 Motion
Cirt and Jayen466 19 October 2015 24 October 2015 Notwithstanding other restrictions on his editing, Cirt (talk · contribs) may edit the article Typewriter in the Sky, its talk page, and pages related to a peer review, good article or featured article candidacy for the article. This exemption may be revoked by any uninvolved administrator as an arbitration enforcement action should Cirt fail to adhere to Wikipedia editing standards while editing under the exemption. Appeal of such a revocation would be through the normal arbitration enforcement appeals process. Motion
Richard Arthur Norton 14 September 2015 16 October 2015 Richard Arthur Norton is indefinitely prohibited from creating any articles or draft articles in any namespace. Moving any page into the article namespace from any other namespace. Motion
Philippe Beaudette CU/OS appointment 30 September 2015 2 October 2015 Philippe (talk · contribs), who recently retired from the post of Director of Community Advocacy at the Wikimedia Foundation, is appointed as a CheckUser and Oversighter. Philippe has experience using both tools both on the English Wikipedia and others, including supporting the community in the WikiPR case and the recent Orangemoody incident. Motion
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Liancourt Rocks 13 September 2015 28 September 2015  
  1. Remedy 3 of the Liancourt Rocks case is rescinded.
  2. In its place, Standard Discretionary sanctions are authorised with immediate effect for all pages relating to the Liancourt Rocks;
  3. Nothing in this motion provides grounds for appeal of remedies or restrictions imposed while the article probation for the foregoing case was in force. Such appeals or requests to lift or modify such sanctions may be made under the same terms as any other appeal.
 Motion
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Argentine History 17 August 2015 1 September 2015 Remedy 2 (MarshalN20 topic banned) of the Argentine History case is suspended for a period of one year. During the period of suspension, this topic ban may be reinstated by any uninvolved administrator as an arbitration enforcement action should MarshalN20 (talk · contribs) fail to adhere to Wikipedia editing standards in the area previously covered by the topic ban. Appeal of such a reinstatement would follow the normal arbitration enforcement appeals process. After one year from the date of passage of this motion, if the topic ban has not been reinstated or any reinstatements have been successfully appealed, the topic ban will be lifted. Motion
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Longevity 30 August 2015 Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all pages related to longevity, broadly construed. Motion
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes 31 May 2015 I) Remedy 3.2 of the Infoboxes case is suspended.

II) For a six-month period Gerda Arendt may not add or restore, except for the usual exemptions, an Infobox to any article she did not create, without first either a) obtaining a clear consensus to do so on the article talkpage, or b) her proposal on the article talk page attracting no comments for 72 hours.

III) During this six-month period, she must not, in the opinion of a consensus of administrators at the Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard, disrupt any discussion concerning infoboxes.

IV) Gerda Arendt may be blocked for violation of parts II and III. Any such block shall cause remedy 3.2 to be unsuspended; if this is done, the blocking administrator must make the committee aware.

V) If after six months Gerda Arendt has not been blocked under this motion, remedy 3.2 as well as this motion shall automatically lapse.

Motion
2015 CU/OS appointments 1 February 2015 31 March 2015 Appointed: Motions
Dreadstar desysop 28 March 2015 For conduct unbecoming an administrator, namely
  1. sending an insulting e-mail to an editor he had just sanctioned,
  2. edit warring on an article and then protecting his preferred version, and
  3. lifting an arbitration enforcement block out of process,

Dreadstar (talk · contribs) is desysopped. He may regain the tools at any time via a successful request for adminship.

Motion
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Argentine History 1 February 2015 4 February 2015 Notwithstanding other restrictions on their editing, Cambalachero is permitted to edit all content on the articles Raúl Alfonsín, Carlos Menem, Fernando de la Rúa, Adolfo Rodríguez Saá, Eduardo Duhalde, Néstor Kirchner, Cristina Fernández de Kirchner and Pope Francis; as well as their talk pages. They may also make any edits reasonably necessary for those articles to go through the good article, peer review, or featured article processes. If Cambalachero engages in misconduct in respect of any of these articles, this exemption may be revoked either in part or in whole by an uninvolved administrator. Any subsequent appeal should be made at the requests for clarification and amendment page. The administrator must log the revocation on the Argentine history case page, together with a rationale supported by diffs. Motion passed to amend case
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes 20 December 2014 27 January 2015 The Committee will conduct a Review focusing on matters broadly arising from the Infoboxes case. Evidence will be invited specific to the following point:
  1. Are the sanctions of Pigsonthewing in the infoboxes case fit for purpose or should they be revised?

Procedure: The Review will be a simplified form of a full case, the named party being User:Pigsonthewing. Any editor may give evidence providing their evidence is directly relevant to the numbered points above; is supported where appropriate with diffs; and complies with the usual evidence length requirements. The evidence phase lasts for ten days and will be followed by a decision on the substantive issues by motion. No workshop will be held, though relevant comments may be made on the /Review talk page.

Motion passed to create a case
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes 20 December 2014 27 January 2015 The Committee will conduct a Review focusing on matters broadly arising from the Infoboxes case. Evidence will be invited specific to the following point:
  1. Are the sanctions of Pigsonthewing in the infoboxes case fit for purpose or should they be revised?

Procedure: The Review will be a simplified form of a full case, the named party being User:Pigsonthewing. Any editor may give evidence providing their evidence is directly relevant to the numbered points above; is supported where appropriate with diffs; and complies with the usual evidence length requirements. The evidence phase lasts for ten days and will be followed by a decision on the substantive issues by motion. No workshop will be held, though relevant comments may be made on the /Review talk page.

Motion passed to create a case
Motion to establish a central log for discretionary sanctions and associated amendments 17 January 2015 20 January 2015 Establishment of a central log

A central log ("log") of all sanctions placed under the discretionary sanctions procedure is to be established by the Arbitration clerks on a page designated for that purpose (Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions/Log). The log transcludes annual log sub-pages (e.g. [/Log/2015], [/Log/2014]) in reverse chronological order, with the sub-pages arranged by topic, then by month within each topic. An annual log sub-page shall be courtesy blanked once five years have elapsed since the date of the imposition of the last sanction recorded on it, though any active sanctions remain in force. Notifications and warnings issued prior to the introduction of the current procedure on 3 May 2014 are not sanctions and remain on the individual case page logs.

Associated amendments to the discretionary sanctions procedure

1. Additional section to be added

The "Establishment of a central log" text above is to be added to the foot of procedure page, with a heading of "Motion <date>", with the date being the date of enactment.

2. The "Authorisation" section is amended with the following addition:

"Where there is a conflict between any individual provision authorising standard discretionary sanctions for an area of conflict and any provision in the standard discretionary sanctions procedure, the provision in the standard procedure will control."

3. The "Guidance for editors" section is amended with the following addition:

"The availability of discretionary sanctions is not intended to prevent free and candid discussion, but sanctions may be imposed if an editor severely or persistently disrupts discussion."

4. The "Alerts" subsection is amended with the following addition:

"An editor who has an unexpired alert in one area under discretionary sanctions may be sanctioned for edits in another separate but related topic, which is also under discretionary sanctions, provided the nature or the content of the edits – broadly but reasonably construed – in the two topics are similar."

5. The "Logging" subsection is amended with the following replacements:

Replace: "All sanctions and page restrictions must be logged on the pages specified for the purpose in the authorising motion or decision."
With: "All sanctions and page restrictions must be logged on the central log, currently /Log."
Replace: "The log location may not be changed without the consent of the committee."
With: "The log location may not be changed without the explicit consent of the committee."
 Motion passed at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions
Arbitration motion regarding Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fæ 4 January 2015 7 January 2015 The Fæ case is amended to add Remedy 2.1 as follows: "Notwithstanding remedy 2, Fæ is permitted to operate bot accounts, edits from which are only to be made in accordance with Bot Approvals Group approved tasks, or an authorised trial of one." Motion

2014

[edit]
Topic Opened Closed Outcome Relevant links
Arbitration motion regarding Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tea Party movement (Xenophrenic) 2 December 2014 4 December 2014 Remedy 7.1 ("Xenophrenic topic-banned") and Remedy 7.2 ("Xenophrenic interaction ban with Collect") of the Tea Party movement decision are suspended. These remedies may be enforced under the relevant enforcement provision, but effective the passage of this motion they shall only be enforced for edits by Xenophrenic (talk · contribs) that, in the enforcing administrator's judgement, would have been considered disruptive for some other reason than that they breached the remedy had it not been suspended.

Enforcement action taken pursuant to the foregoing may be appealed in the ordinary way to a consensus view of uninvolved administrators. If no such enforcement action is taken (or all such actions are taken and successfully appealed) by 01 January 2015, on that date the remedies will become formally vacated by this motion, and the case pages then amended by the clerks in the usual way. If an appeal of such enforcement action is pending on 01 January 2015, the remedies will become formally vacated only if the appeal is successful. If enforcement action is taken and an appeal is rejected, the remedies shall become unsuspended and a request for their amendment may not be re-submitted to the committee until six months have elapsed from the passage of this motion.

Motion
Arbitration motion amending and rescinding some discretionary sanctions remedies 24 November 2014 30 September 2014 Following a request to amend several prior decisions to terminate discretionary sanctions provisions that may no longer be necessary,
  1. Remedy 14 of the Ayn Rand case is rescinded;
  2. Remedy 5 of the Monty Hall problem case is rescinded;
  3. Remedy 1 of the Longevity case is rescinded;
  4. The discretionary sanctions authorised explicitly for the Cold fusion 2 and the Homeopathy cases are rescinded. The discretionary sanctions authorised for the Pseudoscience and "Fringe science" cases continue to apply. Additionally, Remedy 14 of the Pseudoscience case is amended by replacing the word "articles" with the word "pages" for consistency;
  5. Remedy 5 of the Tree shaping case is rescinded;
  6. Remedy 10 of the Gibraltar case is rescinded;
  7. Nothing in this motion provides grounds for appeal of remedies or restrictions imposed while discretionary sanctions for the foregoing cases were in force. Such appeals or requests to lift or modify such sanctions may be made under the same terms as any other appeal;
  8. In the event that disruptive editing resumes in any of these topic-areas, a request to consider reinstating discretionary sanctions in that topic-area may be made on the clarifications and amendments page.
  9. A record of topics for which discretionary sanctions have been authorised and subsequently terminated is to be established and maintained on the discretionary sanctions main page.
 Motion
Arbitration motion granting temporary local CheckUser permission to Arbitration Committee Election Scrutineers 19 November 2014 23 September 2014 For the purpose of scrutineering the 2014 Arbitration Committee elections, stewards User:Matanya, User:Barras, and User:Trijnstel, appointed as scrutineers, are granted temporary local CheckUser permissions effective from the time of the passage of this motion until the certification of the election results. Motion
Arbitration motion regarding several cases with discretionary sanctions 1 October 2014 27 October 2014 This motion amends the wording of existing discretionary sanction remedies to make clear that they apply to all pages related to the topic, regardless of namespace.

1) The following remedies are amended by striking the word "articles" and inserting the word "pages" in its place:

2) Remedy 5 of the Monty Hall problem case is amended to read as follows:

Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all pages related to the Monty Hall problem, broadly interpreted.

3) Remedy 10 of the Gibraltar case is amended to read as follows:

Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all pages related to Gibraltar and its history, people, and political status, broadly interpreted.

4) Clause (b) of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Falun_Gong#Motions is amended to read as follows:

Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all pages related to Falun Gong, broadly interpreted.

Any existing sanctions and restrictions remain in force and are not affected by this motion.

Motion
Arbitration motion regarding Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Waldorf education 12 September 2014 28 September 2014 Remedies 1 and 1.1 in the Waldorf education case (Pete K banned/Pete K ban clarified) are stricken. In lieu of these remedies, the following restriction is enacted: Pete K is topic banned indefinitely from the subject of Waldorf education, broadly construed. Enforcement of this provision shall be per the enforcement provisions in the Waldorf education case and shall be logged at the same case page. This restriction may be appealed to the Committee no less than one year from the date it is enacted, and if such appeal is unsuccessful no less than one year after the decline of the most recent failed appeal. Motion
Arbitration motion regarding Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Guanaco, MarkSweep, et al 25 August 2014 27 August 2014 The second sentence of remedy 1 of the Guanaco, MarkSweep, et al case, currently reading:

In view of his previous desysopping, he may not request to have his adminship restored.

is vacated and replaced with the following:

Guanaco may regain the tools via a new request for adminship.

Motion
Arbitration motion regarding Tea Party movement 20 August 2014 24 August 2014

(Arthur Rubin topic banned) in the Tea Party movement case is suspended for the period of one year from the date of passage of this motion. During the period of suspension, any uninvolved administrator may as an arbitration enforcement action reinstate the topic ban for failure to follow Wikipedia's standards of conduct in the area previously covered by the ban. Such reinstatement may be appealed via the normal appeals process for arbitration enforcement actions. At one year from the date of passage of this motion, if the ban has not been reinstated or any reinstatements were successfully appealed, the topic ban will be lifted permanently. The following restriction is enacted: Arthur Rubin is restricted indefinitely to one revert per page per week in the area of the Tea Party movement. Enforcement of this restriction shall be per the enforcement provisions in the Tea Party movement case and any enforcement actions shall be logged at the same case page. This restriction may be appealed after no less than one year from the date of passage of this motion, and if unsuccessful no less than one year following the decline of that or any subsequent appeal.

Motion
Arbitration motion regarding Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Argentine History 11 July 2014 14 July 2014

Notwithstanding the sanction imposed on MarshalN20 (talk · contribs) in Argentine History, he may edit United States, its talk page, and pages related to a featured article candidacy for the article. This exemption may be withdrawn at any time by motion of the Arbitration Committee.

Motion
Arbitration motion regarding Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abortion 1 July 2014 12 July 2014

The indefinite topic-ban of Haymaker (talk · contribs) from the abortion-related pages is lifted.

Motion
Arbitration Motion regarding Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Audit Subcommittee 2 July 2014 4 July 2014

An extension to the terms of the current members of the Audit Subcommittee (AUSC) is authorised until 00:00, 27 August 2014 (UTC), to allow a functioning subcommittee until appointments are finalised. AUSC members may choose whether they wish to stay on until that period or retire with an effective date of their original term's terminus. As always, the Arbitration Committee thanks the community Audit Subcommittee members for their service.

Motion
Arbitration Motion regarding Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Audit Subcommittee 2 July 2014 4 July 2014

Audit Subcommittee (AUSC) members are provided with the CheckUser and suppression tools in order to carry out their responsibilities. Historically, community appointees to the AUSC were discouraged from routine or regular use of either tool. Since appropriate procedures exist for excluding arbitrator or community AUSC members from cases in which they may be involved, there is not a compelling reason to continue to prohibit use of the CheckUser or suppression tools.

As such, members of the AUSC are explicitly permitted to use their advanced permissions for non-AUSC-related actions as allowed by the appropriate policies surrounding each permission, as members of the functionaries team. This is without regard to the presence of a backlog or time-sensitive situation.

Motion
Arbitration Motion regarding Fæ 28 April 2014 16 May 2014

Notwithstanding the existing restrictions on his editing, Fæ is permitted to edit regarding images of sexuality in ancient and medieval times, up to A.D. 1000. This permission may be withdrawn at any time by further motion of this Committee.

Motion
Amendment to Falun Gong 2 (User:Ohconfucius) 29 April 2014 07 May 2014

The Committee resolves that remedy 2 (Ohconfucius topic-banned) in the Falun Gong 2 arbitration case is suspended for the period of one year from the date of passage of this motion. During the period of suspension, any uninvolved administrator may, as an arbitration enforcement action, reinstate the topic ban on Ohconfucius should Ohconfucius fail to follow Wikipedia behavior and editing standards while editing in the topic area covered by the suspended restriction. In addition, the topic ban will be reinstated should Ohconfucius be validly blocked by any uninvolved administrator for misconduct in the topic area covered by the suspended restriction. Such a reinstatement may be appealed via the normal process for appealing arbitration enforcement actions. After one year from the date of passage of this motion, if the ban has not been reinstated or any reinstatements have been successfully appealed, the topic ban will be repealed.

Motion
Standard appeals and modification provision 02 May 2014 03 May 2014

That the updated Appeals and modifications provision become the standard provision and replace all prior discretionary sanction appeal provisions with immediate effect

The updated provision was:

Appeals by sanctioned editors

Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction and only for a currently active sanction. The process has three possible stages (see "Important notes" below). The editor may:

  1. ask the enforcing administrator to reconsider their original decision;
  2. request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators’ noticeboard ("AN"); and
  3. submit a request for amendment at "ARCA". If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email through Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee (or, if email access is revoked, to arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org).
Modifications by administrators

No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without:

  1. the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or
  2. prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" below).

Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped.

Nothing in this section prevents an administrator from replacing an existing sanction issued by another administrator with a new sanction if fresh misconduct has taken place after the existing sanction was applied.

Important notes:

  1. For a request to succeed, either
(i) the clear and substantial consensus of (a) uninvolved administrators at AE or (b) uninvolved editors at AN or
(ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA
is required. If consensus at AE or AN is unclear, the status quo prevails.
  2. While asking the enforcing administrator and seeking reviews at AN or AE are not mandatory prior to seeking a decision from the committee, once the committee has reviewed a request, further substantive review at any forum is barred. The sole exception is editors under an active sanction who may still request an easing or removal of the sanction on the grounds that said sanction is no longer needed, but such requests may only be made once every six months, or whatever longer period the committee may specify.
  3. These provisions apply only to discretionary sanctions placed by administrators and to blocks placed by administrators to enforce arbitration case decisions. They do not apply to sanctions directly authorised by the committee, and enacted either by arbitrators or by arbitration clerks, or to special functionary blocks of whatever nature.
 Motion: Appeals and modifications
Discretionary sanctions (2014) housekeeping provisions 02 May 2014 03 May 2014 That the housekeeping provisions be implemented with immediate effect

These housekeeping provisions were:

  1. Remedy 8A of Disputed islands in East Asia is rescinded as it is no longer required.
  2. Motion 2 of the Trusilver motions are rescinded; they are superseded by the standard appeals and modification provision below.
  3. The substantive content at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions is rescinded, and replaced with the new remedy above. The substantive content above is also to replace the "discretionary sanctions" committee procedure.
  4. Remedies 4 ("Administrators advised") and 5 (Administrators reminded") of the Arbitration Enforcement sanction handling case are rescinded, and each replaced with a link to the new remedy above.
  5. Provisions relating to mandated external review authorised in Motion about The Troubles of 08 September 2012 are rescinded. The Mandated external review page is deprecated and to be marked historic. The mandated external reviews already in place in respect of users Humunculus, Ohconfucius, and Collipon are vacated.
  6. Provisions for special enforcement of Biographies of living people (BLP) in Footnoted Quotes are rescinded and replaced by:

    "Standard Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions are authorised for the area of conflict, namely any edit in any article with biographical content relating to living or recently deceased people or any edit relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles of any page in any namespace"

    The administrator instructions page is deprecated and replaced with a redirect to the main Discretionary sanctions page.
  7. The standard enforcement provision adopted by motion on 4 June 2012 is amended as follows:

    "Should any user subject to a restriction in this case violate that restriction, that user may be blocked, initially for up to one month, and then with blocks increasing in duration to a maximum of one year." and case pages/case templates are to be updated accordingly.

  8. On passing, the new standard appeal/modification provision is to be added to: (i) the "Appeals and modifications" section of the updated Discretionary sanctions procedure; and to be added/linked to on (ii) the applicable section of all past and current case pages; and (iii) the case template for future cases.
  9. All sanctions and restrictions remain in full force and are governed by the "Continuity" provisions of the new procedure.
 Motion: DS (2014) housekeeping provisions
Discretionary sanctions (2014) 02 May 2014 03 May 2014

That the updated Discretionary sanctions procedure supersedes and replaces all prior discretionary sanction provisions with immediate effect.

See the motion page for this updated procedure.

Motion: Discretionary sanctions (2014)
Rich Farmbrough 9 April 2014 21 April 2014

The following clarification now applies

In order to resolve the enforcement request referred to us, the committee resolves that:

  1. Rich Farmbrough (talk · contribs) has violated his restriction against automated editing. That restriction clearly required he "make only completely manual edits" and hence the prohibition applies regardless of namespace.
  2. Accordingly, Rich Farmbrough is warned that the committee is likely to take a severe view of further violations, and may consider replacing his automation restriction with a site ban.
 Motion 3


Ryulong 17 February 2014 26 February 2014

The following sanction is vacated with immediate effect.


3) Should Ryulong be found to be seeking or requesting any administrative action on IRC against users with whom he is in dispute, he may be reported to ANI or the Arbitration Enforcement page.

During the original case Ryulong was admonished for excessive off-wiki requests of an inappropriate nature in remedy 3b, which reads in part:

(B) For contacting administrators in private to seek either blocks on users he is in dispute with, or the performance of other administrative actions. Any further occurrence would lead to sanctions.

The admonishment is left in place as warning not to return to the excessive and/or inappropriate behavior of the past, but the final sentence "Any further occurrence would lead to sanctions." is to be stricken.

Motion 1

Motion 2

Kevin Gorman N/A N/A The committee notes that it is not in dispute that User:Kevin Gorman has acted out of process and in a manner which is incompatible with the standards to which administrators are held. The committee notes and accepts Kevin Gorman's assurances that he has learned by his mistakes and will not repeat them. Kevin Gorman is strongly admonished. The request shall be filed as "Kevin Gorman". The request for a full case is declined. Motion
Kevin Gorman N/A N/A The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:
  • By way of clarification, the formal warning issued by Kevin Gorman was out of process and therefore has no effect. The provisions of WP:BLPBAN will be reviewed by the Arbitration Committee and where necessary updated.
 Motion
Increase of protection on article protected under WP:OFFICE action 24 January 2014 28 January 2014 Kww is admonished for knowingly modifying a clearly designated Wikimedia Foundation Office action, which he did in the absence of any emergency and without any form of consultation, and is warned that he is subject to summary desysopping if he does this again.

Because the request for arbitration filed by Kww seeks review of Office actions, it is outside the purview of the Arbitration Committee and accordingly the request is declined.

Motion
Ancient Egypt 8 January 2014 9 January 2014 Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized with immediate effect for all pages relating to Ancient Egyptian race controversy and associated articles, broadly construed. This supersedes the existing article probation remedy enacted in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Dbachmann#Article probation.

This motion does not affect any actions presently in effect that were taken in enforcement of the old article probation remedy.

Motion

2013

[edit]
Topic Opened Closed Outcome Relevant links
Motion regarding activity levels for holders of both CU and OS tools 30 November 2013 31 December 2013 The two alternative motions ended deadlocked with equal support. Archived to allow the incoming 2014 committee to return to this later if need be. Motion
Arbitration motion regard Arbitration Committe election scrutineers 30 November 2013 1 December 2013 For the purpose of scrutineering the 2013 Arbitration Committee elections, stewards User:Mathonius, User:Vituzzu, User:Matanya, and User:Tegel, appointed as scrutineers, are granted temporary local CheckUser permissions effective from the time of the passage of this motion until the certification of the election results. Motion
Amendment to Manning naming dispute 21 October 2013 24 October 2013 Finding of fact 22 was replaced with the following text: "During the course of the dispute, Baseball Bugs (talk · contribs) frequently accused other participants in the dispute of misconduct [9], [10] [11]; engaged in soapboxing based on his personal view of the article subject's actions [12] [13] [14] [15]; and needlessly personalised the dispute [16]." Motion
Amendment to Race and intelligence 6 October 2013 13 October 2013 "For posting inappropriate material relating to an editor with whom he is subject to an interaction restriction, Mathsci (talk · contribs) is indefinitely banned from the English Wikipedia. He may request reconsideration of the ban not less than six months from the date this motion passes." motion
Amendment to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Scientology 14 September 2013 19 September 2013 The committee has decided to allow an appeal of the sanction imposed upon The Devil's Advocate (talk · contribs) on 9 July 2013 under Scientology discretionary sanctions. Therefore, that sanction is vacated with immediate effect. motion
Arbitration motion regarding Mathsci 14 September 2013 17 September 2013 In May 2012 (during the Race and intelligence review), the committee prohibited SightWatcher (talk · contribs) from "participating in any discussion concerning the conduct of editors who have worked in the topic" – and therefore from discussing Mathsci's conduct. In October 2012, The Devil's Advocate (talk · contribs) and Cla68 (talk · contribs) were banned (by an administrator acting under discretionary sanctions) from interacting with Mathsci. In December 2012, Mathsci was prohibited (again under discretionary sanctions) by an arbitration enforcement administrator from requesting enforcement of these interaction bans without prior permission. The Arbitration Committee has decided to change these from one-way to two-way interaction bans. Accordingly, Mathsci (talk · contribs) is indefinitely prohibited from:

This motion should be enforced under the enforcement clauses of the Race and intelligence final decision.

motion
Netoholic and Locke Cole interaction ban 10 September 2013 16 September 2013 The ban on interaction between Locke Cole and Netoholic imposed in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Locke_Cole in 2006 is terminated in light of the time that has passed without further problems. motion
Cambalachero-Lecen and MarshalN20-Lecen interaction ban 16 August 2013 18 August 2013 1) Cambalachero and Lecen are indefinitely prohibited from interacting with, or commenting on, each other anywhere on Wikipedia (subject to the ordinary exceptions).

2) MarshalN20 and Lecen are indefinitely prohibited from interacting with, or commenting on, each other anywhere on Wikipedia (subject to the ordinary exceptions).

Should one of these users violate this restriction, the user may be blocked, initially for up to one month, and then with blocks increasing in duration to a maximum of one year. Appeals of blocks may be made to the imposing administrator, then to arbitration enforcement, and then to the Arbitration Committee.

Motions
MarshalN20 7 August 2013 13 August 2013 Not withstanding the sanction imposed on MarshalN20 (talk · contribs) in Argentine History, he may edit Falkland Islands, its talk page, and pages related to a featured article candidacy for the article. This exemption may be withdrawn by Basalisk (talk · contribs) at any time, or by motion of the Arbitration Committee. Motion
Motion regarding Syrian civil war articles 18 July 2013 21 July 2013 In March 2013, an administrator notified the editors of Syrian civil war and several associated pages that the topic area fell under the scope of {{Arab-Israeli Arbitration Enforcement}}, which provides for a blanket one revert per editor per article per day restriction as well as discretionary sanctions. A request for clarification or amendment has now been filed raising the issue of whether the topic-area of the Syrian Civil War falls within the scope of the Arab-Israeli topic-area for purposes of arbitration enforcement.

The Arbitration Committee concludes that the topic of the Syrian Civil War does not fit within the category of Arab-Israeli disputes, although certain specific issues relating to that war would fall within that topic.

However, the administrator action extending discretionary sanctions and the 1RR limitation to Syrian Civil War was taken in good faith. Several editors have commented that the restrictions have been helpful to the editing environment and that they should remain in effect. No one has requested that the Arbitration Committee open a full case to consider the issue.

Accordingly, the existing sanctions and restrictions applied to Syrian Civil War and related articles will continue in effect for a period not to exceed 30 days. During that period, a discussion should be opened on the Administrators' Noticeboard (WP:AN) to determine whether there is consensus to continue the restrictions in effect as community-based restrictions, either as they currently exist or in a modified form. If a consensus is not reached during the community discussion, any editor may file a request for arbitration. In the interim, any notifications and sanctions are to be logged at Talk:Syrian civil war/Log.

Motion
Motion regarding GoodDay 16 April 2013 22 April 2013 In remedy 2 of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GoodDay, GoodDay (talk · contribs) was warned that "in the event of additional violations of Wikipedia's conduct policies (especially of the nature recorded in this decision as findings of fact), substantial sanctions, up to a ban from the project, may be imposed without further warning by the Arbitration Committee". It is apparent from the submissions in this amendment request that GoodDay has engaged in further violations of Wikipedia's conduct policies. Accordingly, GoodDay is banned from the English Wikipedia for a period of no less than one year. After one year has elapsed, a request may be made for the ban to be lifted. Any such request must address all the circumstances which led to this ban being imposed and demonstrate an understanding of and intention to refrain from similar actions in the future. Motion
Motion to return Kevin's administrator rights 10 March 2013 12 March 2013 Based on his commitment not to reverse any block designated as an oversight-based block [17], Kevin's administrator privileges are reinstated, effective immediately. He is strongly admonished for reversing the block and warned to abide by all applicable policies governing the conduct of administrators. Motion
Motion regarding the usage & retention of CU/OS permissions by community AUSC appointees 20 February 2013 11 March 2013 Audit Subcommittee (AUSC) members are provided with Checkuser and Oversight tools in order to carry out their responsibilities. Community appointees to the AUSC are discouraged from routine or regular use of either tool; however, they are permitted to use the tools in order to develop a sufficient skill level to adequately assess the actions of Checkusers and Oversighters, and may assist in addressing time-sensitive situations, or serious backlogs. Community AUSC appointees who held advanced permission(s) prior to their term will retain the permission(s) they held prior to their appointment. Community AUSC appointees who did not hold advanced permissions prior to their term may apply to retain Checkuser and/or Oversight during any Checkuser/Oversight appointment cycle that occurs during their term and, if successfully appointed, will assume their new role at the end of the AUSC term. Motion
Motion regarding CheckUser/Oversight permissions and inactivity 20 February 2013 11 March 2013 The Arbitration Committee confirms the current procedures with respect to advanced permissions and inactivity as approved in March 2011, with the exception of retitling the provision "CheckUser/Oversight permissions and inactivity". Motion
Motion regarding Oversight-related blocks 5 March 2013 9 March 2013 On July 19, 2010, the Arbitration Committee issued a statement noting that blocks based on confidential Checkuser information should not be lifted without consulting a Checkuser who has the ability to review said information. Since that time, this has been incorporated into the blocking policy.

While that statement focused primarily on checkuser-based blocks, the Arbitration Committee reminds administrators that they should not be taking any action when they are unable to make themselves fully aware of the circumstances that led to the block under review. Specifically, an oversighter may note that a block should not be lifted without consulting a member of the oversight team; in these situations, administrators are expected to heed this request and not unilaterally remove the block.

Motion
Amendment regarding Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2 23 February 2013 8 March 2013 The section entitled "Standard discretionary sanctions" in the Armenia-Azerbaijan 2 case is replaced with the following:
Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all pages related to Armenia, Azerbaijan, or related ethnic conflicts, broadly interpreted.

Previous or existing sanctions, warnings, and enforcement actions are not affected by this motion.

Motion
Motion regarding withdrawn case requests 6 February 2013 8 February 2013 If the filing party of a request for an arbitration case withdraws said request, the request may be removed after 24 hours if:
  1. No arbitrator has voted to accept the case; or
  2. There are four net votes to decline the case.

In all other circumstances, the request shall remain open until 24 hours after the above circumstances apply, or until the case can be accepted or declined through the procedures outlined in "Opening of proceedings".

Motion
Motion regarding Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Waldorf education 30 January 2013 30 January 2013 1) Standard Discretionary sanctions are authorised with immediate effect for all pages relating to Waldorf education, broadly construed. This supersedes the existing Article Probation remedy set down in Waldorf education, remedy 1 and re-affirmed in the Waldorf education review, remedy 2.

This motion does not affect any actions presently in effect that were taken in enforcement of the old article probation remedy.

Motion
Motion regarding Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles 10 January 2013 12 January 2013

1) On 27 December 2012, the Arbitration Committee asked the community to hold a discussion concerning the Jerusalem article. The committee also resolved to appoint three uninvolved, experienced editors to decide the result of that request for comment (the "Closers").

  • In addition to the three Closers, the committee also appoints at this time a fourth editor as Moderator of the discussion.
  • The Moderator will be responsible for assisting the community as it sets up the discussion, supervising the discussion, and ensuring the discussion remains focussed and relevant.
  • To enable him to perform these duties, the Moderator may close sub-sections or sub-pages of the discussion pages, and when doing so may direct discussion towards other sections or points.
  • The three closers are responsible for determining the result of the community's discussion upon its conclusion.
  • The original motion in December included a clause authorising administrators, including the Moderator, to sanction editors for disrupting the process, and that clause remains in effect. The clause that the result of this structured discussion will be binding for three years also remains in effect.

We appoint the following three editors to close the discussion:

  1. Keilana (talk · contribs)
  2. RegentsPark (talk · contribs)
  3. Pgallert (talk · contribs)

We appoint Mr. Stradivarius (talk · contribs) as the discussion moderator.

Our sincerest thanks go to these four editors, for accepting these appointments and for assisting the community in conducting and closing this discussion. We suggest that this discussion be publicised at appropriate community venues, and we invite experienced, uninvolved editors to assist with creating the discussion pages.

 Motion
Motion regarding User:Hex 4 January 2013 7 January 2013 The Arbitration Committee has considered the request for arbitration concerning Hex (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)'s block of O'Dea (talk · contribs). There is no evidence of a significant, recurring problem with Hex's use of his administrator permissions. However, Hex is:
(A) Reminded that he must obey the community's "involved administrators" policy;
(B) Admonished for blocking O'Dea when no block was appropriate; and
(C) Reminded that he must be fully responsive to valid criticism by the community of his actions.
 Motion
Motion regarding Rich Farmbrough 1 January 2013 6 January 2013 In the Rich Farmbrough case, the revised Finding of Fact 8, enacted on 28 May 2012 is vacated. Nothing in this decision constitutes an endorsement by the Committee of Rich Farmbrough's use of administrative tools to unblock his own accounts. Motion

2012

[edit]
Topic Opened Closed Outcome Relevant links
Motion regarding Jerusalem 16 December 2012 27 December 2012 The community is asked to hold a discussion that will establish a definitive consensus on what will be included in the article Jerusalem (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), with a specific emphasis on the lead section and how Jerusalem is described within the current, contested geopolitical reality. As with all decisions about content, the policies on reliable sourcing and neutral point of view must be the most important considerations. The editors who choose to participate in this discussion are asked to form an opinion with an open mind, and to explain their decision clearly. Any editor who disrupts this discussion may be banned from the affected pages by any uninvolved administrator, under the discretionary sanctions already authorised in this topic area. The discussion will be closed by three uninvolved, experienced editors, whose decision about the result of the discussion will be binding for three years from the adoption of this motion. Motion
Motion regarding Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Prem Rawat and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Prem Rawat 2 15 December 2012 20 December 2012 1) Standard Discretionary sanctions are authorised with immediate effect for all pages relating to Prem Rawat, broadly construed; this supersedes the existing Article Probation remedy.

2) Any current non-expired Article Probation sanctions are hereby vacated and replaced with standard Discretionary Sanctions in the same terms and durations as the vacated sanctions. If appropriate, these may be appealed at Arbitration Enforcement.

3) The Logs of blocks, bans, and restrictions at the Prem Rawat 2 case page is to be merged into the original Prem Rawat log at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Prem Rawat#Logs of blocks, bans, and restrictions, which is to be used for all future recording of warnings and sanctions.

Motion
Motion regarding Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience and related cases 11 November 2012 15 November 2012 Remedy 13 of the Pseudoscience Case is modified to read "Standard discretionary sanctions are authorised for all articles relating to pseudoscience and fringe science, broadly interpreted. Any uninvolved administrator may levy restrictions as an arbitration enforcement action on users editing in this topic area, after an initial warning."

Existing discretionary sanction remedies that this motion will deprecate may be stricken through and marked as redundant in the usual manner. Enforcement should now be sought under Pseudoscience, rather than under previous decisions concerning sub-topics of pseudoscience, but previous or existing sanctions or enforcement actions are not affected by this motion.

Motion
Motion regarding Iantresman 25 October 2012 4 November 2012 The topic ban placed against Iantresman (talk · contribs) as a condition of unblocking in [18] is hereby lifted. In its place, Iantresman is subject to a standard 1RR restriction (no more than one revert per article per 24-hour period) on all articles covering fringe science- and physics-related topics, broadly construed, for six months. This restriction may be enforced by escalating blocks up to and including one month in length, and up to and including indefinite length after the fifth such block. When each block is lifted or expires, the six-month period shall reset. Additionally, the original topic ban shall be reinstated if Iantresman is subjected to an indefinite block as a result of this restriction. The Arbitration Committee should be notified of this situation should it occur. Motion
Motion regarding Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility enforcement 16 October 2012 25 October 2012 Remedy 4 ("Malleus Fatuorum topic banned") of Civility Enforcement is vacated, and replaced with the following:

Malleus Fatuorum (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is topic banned from making edits concerning the RFA process anywhere on the English Wikipedia. As an exception, he may ask questions of the candidates and express his own view on a candidate in a specific RFA (in the support, oppose, or neutral sections), but may not engage in any threaded discussions relating to RFA. An uninvolved admin may remove any comments in violation of this remedy, and may enforce it with blocks if necessary.

Motion
Motion regarding Opening of Proceedings 12 October 2012 21 October 2012 A request will proceed to arbitration if it meets all of the following criteria:
  1. Its acceptance has been supported by either of (i) four net votes or (ii) an absolute majority of active, non-recused arbitrators;
  2. More than 24 hours have elapsed since the request came to satisfy the above provision; and
  3. More than 48 hours have elapsed since the request was filed.

A proceeding may be opened earlier, waiving provisions 2 and 3 above, if a majority of arbitrators support fast-track opening in their acceptance votes.

Once the Committee has accepted a request, a clerk will create the applicable case pages, and give the proceeding a working title. The title is for ease of identification only and may be changed by the Committee at any time. The Committee will designate one or more arbitrators to draft the case, to ensure it progresses, and to act as designated point of contact for any matters arising.

Motion
Motion regarding Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sathya Sai Baba 2 20 August 2012 29 September 2012 Remedy 1.1 of the Sathya Sai Baba 2 arbitration case is suspended for three months. During this period, Andries may edit within this topic area, provided that he carefully abides by all applicable policies. After three months, Andries may request that the topic-ban remedy be vacated permanently. Motion
Arbitration motion regarding Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race and intelligence 9 August 2012 24 September 2012 All users are banned from restoring edits by banned users in the Race and Intelligence topic area. To enforce this, Standard discretionary sanctions have been authorized. Motion
Arbitration motion regarding User:GregJackP 14 September 2012 24 September 2012 The restriction imposed on GregJackP (talk · contribs) in the Climate change case and the supplementary restriction relating to New Religious movements imposed by the Ban Appeals Subcommittee on 17 March 2012 as a condition of unblocking are hereby lifted. Motion
Arbitration motion regarding Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles 18 August 2012 8 September 2012 British baronets are no longer under Standard discretionary sanctions Motion
Motion: Mandated external review adopted and Falun Gong 2 amended 17 August 2012 8 September 2012 Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Mandated external review is officially adopted and Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Falun Gong 2 is updated to reflect that. Discussion and motions
Motion: User:EncycloPetey desysopped 7 September 2012 8 September 2012 For using his administrator tools while involved (see evidence), the administrator permissions of User:EncycloPetey are revoked. To regain administrator permissions, EncycloPetey must make a successful Request for Adminship (RfA). Motion
Motion regarding Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/India-Pakistan 7 July 2012 29 July 2012 Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all pages related to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, broadly construed Motion
Motion to remove administrative tools from User:Carnildo 1 July 2012 5 July 2012 For exercising long term poor judgement in his use of administrative tools, including his recent block of User:Itsmejudith, User:Carnildo's administrative tools are removed. Carnildo may regain the administrative tools in the usual manner via a successful Request for Adminship. Motion
Amendment: Scientology (Lyncs) 23 May 2012 8 June 2012 The indefinite ban of Lyncs (talk · contribs) from the Scientology topic—that was set down (as "Topic banned from Scientology") as a condition of his successful siteban appeal—is vacated. Motion
Motion on procedural motions 27 May 2012 7 June 2012 Significant or substantive modifications of the Arbitration Committee's procedures shall be made by way of formal motions on the Committee's public motions page; shall be announced on the Committee's noticeboard and the administrator's noticeboard by the clerks when first proposed; and shall remain open for at least 24 hours after those announcements are made. Motion
Motion on Rich Farmbrough enforcement 31 May 2012 6 June 2012 Long text of the motion can be found at link on right Motion
Motion regarding standardized enforcement 28 May 2012 4 June 2012 Long text of the motion can be found at link on right Motion
Motion regarding Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Speed of light 16 May 2012 3 June 2012 Topic-ban for User:Brews ohare indefinitely from all pages of whatever nature about physics and physics-related mathematics, broadly construed; suspension of ban possibly allowed after one year Motion
Motion regarding decision elements 28 May 2012 2 June 2012 Long text of the motion can be found at link on right Motion
Motion regarding Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Scientology 14 May 2012 1 June 2012 The restriction imposed on Prioryman (talk · contribs) by Remedy 17 of the Scientology case ("ChrisO restricted") is hereby lifted. Motion
Motion regarding Scientology sanctions 30 May 2012 1 June 2012 ;Remedy 4 - Discretionary topic ban

This remedy is superseded with immediate effect by Remedy 4.1. All discretionary topic bans placed under Remedy 4 remain in full force and are subject to the provisions of Remedy 4.1.

Remedy 4.1 - Discretionary sanctions authorised

Standard discretionary sanctions are authorised with immediate effect for the Scientology topic broadly construed. All warnings and sanctions shall be logged in the appropriate section of the main case page.

Motion
Motion regarding Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change 30 April 2012 30 May 2012 The restriction imposed on Prioryman (talk · contribs) by Remedy 11.6 of the Climate change case ("ChrisO topic-banned") is hereby lifted. Motion
Motion regarding Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change 14 May 2012 30 May 2012 The restriction imposed on A Quest For Knowledge (talk · contribs) by Remedy 18 of the Climate change case ("A Quest For Knowledge topic-banned") is hereby lifted. Motion
Arbitration motion regarding Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Scientology 14 May 2012 29 May 2012 The restriction imposed on Jayen466 (talk · contribs) by Remedy 21.1 of the Scientology case ("Jayen466 topic-banned from Rick Ross articles") is hereby lifted. Motion
Motion to consolidate evidence submission procedures 27 May 2012 28 May 2012 Submissions of evidence are expected to be succinct and to the point. By default, submissions are limited to about 1000 words and about 100 difference links for named parties, and to about 500 words and about 50 difference links for all other editors. Editors wishing to submit evidence longer than the default limits are expected to obtain the approval of the drafting arbitrator(s) via a request on the /Evidence talk page prior to posting it.

Submissions must be posted on the case /Evidence pages; submission of evidence via sub-pages in userspace is prohibited. Unapproved over-length submissions, and submissions of inappropriate material and/or links, may be removed, refactored, or redacted at the discretion of the clerks and/or the Committee.

Motion
Motion regarding Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Rich Farmbrough 20 May 2012 28 May 2012 FoF 8 (Unblocking of SmackBot) changed to: Rich Farmbrough has on many occasions, after another administrator has placed a block on his bot account, used his administrative tools to unblock his own bot without first remedying the underlying issue to the blocking admin's satisfaction or otherwise achieving consensus for such unblock (see block logs of SmackBot, Helpful Pixie Bot). Motion
Motion regarding Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race and intelligence/Review 17 May 2012 26 May 2012 That FoF 2.5 in the Race and intelligence review be amended to read: Mathsci has engaged in borderline personal attacks and frequent battleground conduct. Motion
Motion: Change evidence limits in arbitration cases 3 April 2012 24 May 2012 Users who are named parties to an arbitration case shall limit their evidence submission to no more than 1000 words in length. All other users submitting evidence to an arbitration case shall limit their evidence submission to no more than 500 words in length. All evidence must be presented on the case's /Evidence subpage. Evidence submissions significantly over the appropriate limit may be refactored by an arbitration clerk at the discretion of the clerks and Committee. Motion
Motion regarding Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Cirt and Jayen466 13 April 2012 3 May 2012 Notwithstanding other restrictions on his editing, Cirt is granted an exemption in order to edit the article Dan Savage bibliography, its talk page, a peer review for that article, and a featured list candidacy for the article. This exemption may be withdrawn by The Rambling Man at anytime, or by further motion of the Arbitration Committee. Motion
Motion regarding Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Martinphi-ScienceApologist and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience 26 February 2012 28 March 2012 The discretionary sanctions provision at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Martinphi-ScienceApologist#Standard discretionary sanctions are moved to a new section underneath Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience#Discretionary sanctions. The annotation at Pseudoscience that the older discretionary sanctions are superseded by Martinphi-ScienceApologist is stricken through, and to it is appended a note that "Those discretionary sanctions were later moved by motion to this case" with a link to this motion. The sanctions at Martinphi-ScienceApologist are stricken through, with a note that they are "moved by motion to Pseudoscience" with a link to the new sanctions and to this motion.

The purpose of moving the discretionary sanctions provision is to bring it within a case with an appropriate, clear title. Previous actions and current sanctions with their basis on this discretionary sanctions provision are not affected by this move.

Motion
Motion regarding Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abd-William M. Connolley 26 February 2012 20 March 2012‎ The case Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abd-William M. Connolley is renamed to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Cold fusion 2. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Cold fusion is created as a redirect to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Cold fusion, and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Cold fusion 2 is created as a redirect to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Cold fusion 2. For the purposes of procedure, the index of topics with an active discretionary sanctions provision will be updated with the new title, but previous references to the Abd-William M. Connolley decision do not require to be updated. The rename of the Abd-William M. Connolley case to Cold fusion 2 is only for clarity in reference, and does not invalidate any previous action or pending sanctions taken under the provisions of this case. Motion
Motion regarding Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eastern Europe 9 March 2012 20 March 2012 The case Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren is renamed to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eastern Europe. For the new title of Eastern Europe, WP:ARBEURO and WP:ARBEE are created as shortcuts. For the purposes of procedure, the index of topics with an active discretionary sanctions provision will be updated with the new title, but previous references to the Digwuren decision do not require to be updated. The rename of the Digwuren case to Eastern Europe is only for clarity in reference, and does not invalidate any previous action or pending sanctions taken under the provisions of this case. Motion
Motion regarding Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles 24 February 2012 10 March 2012 The text in WP:ARBPIA section "Further remedies" is modified from "Clear vandalism, or edits by anonymous IP editors, may be reverted without penalty" to "Clear vandalism of whatever origin may be reverted without restriction. Reverts of edits made by anonymous IP editors that are not vandalism are exempt from 1RR but are subject to the usual rules on edit warring." As identical text is used in an active sanction related to The Troubles case, the same substitution of wording shall be made there. Motion
Motion regarding Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Racepacket 8 February 2012 11 February 2012 The Arbitration Committee has determined that, as User:Racepacket has on two occasions on 4 February 2012 breached his interaction ban, he is indefinitely site banned from the English Wikipedia. The user may request that the site ban be reconsidered once a minimum of twelve months have elapsed from the date of this motion passing. In the event that Racepacket violates either the site ban, or the interaction ban, the minimum period before an appeal may be submitted will be reset to twelve months from the date of the violation. Motion

2011

[edit]
Topic Opened Closed Outcome Relevant links
Motion regarding Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Climate change 28 October 2011 17 November 2011 The editing restriction described in remedy 16.1 ("Scjessey's voluntary editing restriction") of the Climate change decision is terminated, effective on the passage of this motion. Motion
Omnibus motion regarding past discretionary sanctions 18 October 2011 27 October 2011 To simplify enforcement of older sanctions that are, substantively, discretionary sanctions, the committee hereby amends and supersedes the remedies listed below with the following:
Discretionary Sanctions
The topic is placed under discretionary sanctions. Any uninvolved administrator may levy restrictions as an arbitration enforcement action on users editing in this topic area, after an initial warning.

where "The topic" is specified in the list of amended remedies below. Any extant sanctions or warnings made according to the older wording found in those decisions (as applicable) remain unaffected.

Motion
Motion regarding Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Climate change 29 September 2011 26 October 2011 The topic ban imposed on William M. Connolley (talk · contribs) in the Climate change case is modified, effective immediately. William M. Connolley is permitted to edit within the topic area of Climate change, but is prohibited from editing relating to any living person associated with this topic, interpreted broadly but reasonably. William M. Connolley is reminded to abide by all applicable Wikipedia policies in editing on this topic and that he remains subject either to further action by this Committee or (like all editors in this topic-area) to discretionary sanctions should he fail to do so. Motion
Motion regarding Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Date delinking 5 August 2011 9 September 2011 Remedies 16 and 18 (as amended) are terminated, effective immediately. Ohconfucius is reminded that this subject remains within the jurisdiction of the Arbitration Committee, and that he is expected to abide by all applicable policies and guidelines, especially those concerning the editing and discussion of policies and guidelines, and the use of alternate accounts. Motion
Motion regarding Arbitrator abstention votes 9 August 2011 19 August 2011 That in voting sections of proposed decisions as well as of freestanding motions, an additional "Comments" section will be included following the Support, Oppose, and Abstain sections. This section may be used only by arbitrators for comments on the proposal and for discussion of fellow arbitrators' comments. Posting a comment on a proposal does not constitute a vote on the proposal or change the required majority for the proposal. The use of abstention votes as a vehicle for comments, while ultimately within each arbitrator's discretion, is not recommended. Generally, an arbitrator who posts a comment is also expected to vote on the proposal, either at the same time, or at a later time after there has been an opportunity for his or her comments to be addressed. The Arbitration Committee will reevaluate this change of procedures and consider whether any additional changes are warranted in three months. Motion
Motion regarding User:Gilabrand 18 June 2011 8 August 2011 The arbitration enforcement block placed on Gilabrand (talk · contribs) related to the Palestine-Israel articles case is provisionally suspended as of 25 August or the passage of this motion, whichever is the latter. Gilabrand is reminded that articles in the area of conflict remain the subject of discretionary sanctions, and are currently subject to a 1RR restriction. Gilabrand is further reminded that any future problematic editing following the removal of editing restrictions will viewed dimly. Motion
Motion regarding User:Δ 8 July 2011 14 July 2011 Pursuant to the provisions of Remedy 5.1, RfAr/Betacommand 2, and mindful of the recent and current disputes surrounding this user in many fora, the committee by motion indefinitely topic-bans Δ (formerly known as Betacommand) from making any edit enforcing the non-free content criteria, broadly construed. User:Δ is also formally reminded of the civility restriction and other terms to which they are still subject as a condition of the provisional suspension of their community ban. Motion
Motion regarding Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern European mailing list and Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Russavia-Biophys 17 June 2011 05 July 2011 The remedies of the Eastern European mailing list and Russavia-Biophys cases are amended to permit bilateral interactions between User:Russavia and User:Miacek. Motion
Motion regarding Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case Nabla 20 June 2011 27 June 2011 The following motion has been enacted:
(A) The Arbitration Committee reaffirms its, and the community's, expectation that administrators will observe all applicable policies, avoid inappropriate edits, and behave with maturity and professionalism throughout their participation on Wikipedia. While administrators are not expected to be perfect, severe or repeated violations of policies and community norms may lead to appropriate sanctions, up to and including desysopping.
(B) Nabla's conduct in admittedly making several unproductive edits while editing as an IP has been subject to significant, and justified, criticism. The Arbitration Committee joins in disapproving of this behavior, but accepts Nabla's assurance that he will not repeat it in the future, even to express good-faith concerns or frustrations regarding aspects of the project.
(C) Nabla is aware from the ANI discussion and this request for arbitration that some editors' trust in his ability to serve as an effective administrator has been eroded, both because of his IP edits and because of his period of inactivity. If Nabla intends to resume active work as an administrator, he should first refamiliarize himself with all applicable policies, and we recommend that he focus initially on less controversial administrator tasks. To an extent, these recommendations apply to any administrator who returns after a long period of inactivity.
(D) Although not directly relevant to Nabla's situation, the Arbitration Committee is aware of the ongoing community discussion regarding inactive administrator accounts, and stands ready to play its part if necessary once consensus has been determined.
 Motion
Motion regarding Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ed Poor 2 11 June 2011 24 June 2011 The scope of the topic ban placed upon Ed Poor (talk · contribs) by Kafziel (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) on 2009-12-10[19] as a result of enforcement of remedy 1.1 of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ed Poor 2 is amended to "any article related to Category:Unification Church, not including associated talk pages", effective immediately. Ed Poor is reminded that further disruption related to this topic may result in the topic ban or other remedies being re-imposed by the Committee. Motion
Motion regarding Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/West Bank - Judea and Samaria 18 June 2011 21 June 2011 The editing restrictions placed on Nishidani (talk · contribs) in the West Bank - Judea and Samaria case are lifted effective at the passage of this motion. Nishidani is reminded that articles in the area of conflict, which is identical to the area of conflict as defined by the Palestine-Israel articles case, remain the subject of discretionary sanctions; should he edit within this topic area, those discretionary sanctions continue to apply. motion
Motion regarding Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia 2 3 June 2011 19 June 2011 Remedy 25.3 of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia 2 ("Future Perfect at Sunrise temporarily desysopped") is lifted, effective immediately. Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) is reminded to abide by the policies guiding administrative acts in areas where one is involved, and to apply particular care to avoid conflict in areas related to Greece and Macedonia. Motion
Motion regarding Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Russavia-Biophys 22 May 2011 19 June 2011 The topic ban placed upon Biophys (talk · contribs) in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Russavia-Biophys is lifted, effective immediately. Biophys is reminded that further disruption related to this case may result in the topic ban or other remedies being re-imposed by the Committee. Motion
Motion regarding Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jack Merridew ban review motion 7 May 2011 4 June 2011 The restriction on using multiple/alternate accounts on User:Barong, formerly known as User:Jack Merridew is modified as follows:

User:Barong is directed to edit solely from that account. Should Barong edit from another account or log out to edit in a deliberate attempt to violate this restriction, any uninvolved administrator may block Barong for a reasonable amount of time at their discretion.

Motion
Motion regarding Hyphens and dashes 5 May 2011 16 May 2011 A temporary injunction and an interim motion were passed. The decision as to whether a full case will be opened will be revisited at the expiry of the timeframes referred to in the injunction and motion texts:
  1. There is to be a moratorium on article title changes that are due to hyphen/endash exchange. The only edits allowed will be to create a redirect to the existing article title until the resolution of the debate below.

    All discussions on the subject of En dashes in article titles discussion (interpreted broadly) are subject to civility and 1RR restrictions. Administrators are urged to be proactive in monitoring and assertive in keeping debate civil. Actions requiring clarification can be raised with the Committee on the appropriate subpage.

  2. Interested parties are instructed to spend from now until 30 May 2011 determining the structure of a discussion on En dashes in article titles to obtain consensus. Note that this can be the continuation of a current discussion or commencement anew. From 30 May 2011, a period of six weeks is granted for the gathering of consensus on the issue. The discussion should be of sufficient structure to allow easy quantification of consensus rather than a large amount of poorly-framed debate. If after two months, a determination isn't realised, a case will be opened and conduct violations will be dealt with severely.
 Motion
Motion regarding Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race and intelligence 5 April 2011 15 April 2011 That the following replace the terms in Remedy 5.1:
Editors reminded and discretionary sanctions (amended)
5.2) Both experienced and new editors contributing to articles relating to the area of conflict (namely, the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour, broadly construed) are reminded that this is a highly contentious subject and are cautioned that to avoid disruption they must adhere strictly to fundamental Wikipedia policies, including but not limited to: maintaining a neutral point of view; avoiding undue weight; carefully citing disputed statements to reliable sources; and avoiding edit-warring and incivility.
To enforce the foregoing, Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for any editor making any edit relating to the area of conflict anywhere on Wikipedia.
Sanctions may not be imposed for edits made prior to the passing of this motion but warnings may be given and should be logged appropriately.
All sanctions imposed under the original remedy shall continue in full force.
 Motion
Motion regarding User:Rodhullandemu 26 February 2011 26 February 2011 Rodhullandemu's administrator status is revoked. He may apply for adminship at a future date by the usual means to the community. Motion
Motion regarding Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Date delinking 29 January 2011 8 February 2011 Remedy 7.1 of the Date delinking case, which as originally written prohibited Lightmouse (talk · contribs) from utilizing any automation on Wikipedia, is amended by adding the words "except for a bot task or group of related tasks authorized by the bot approvals group." Remedy 8, which limited Lightmouse to using a single account, is amended by adding the sentence: "He may also use a separate bot account for any bot task or group of related tasks approved by the bot approvals group." 2 Motion
Motion regarding Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Date delinking 1 February 2011 8 February 2011 Remedy 18 of the Date delinking case, which limits Ohconfucius (talk · contribs) to using a single account, is amended by adding the sentence: "He may also use a separate bot account for any bot task or tasks approved by the bot approvals group." Motion
Motion regarding Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern European mailing list 4 January 2011 3 February 2011 The topic ban placed upon Piotrus (talk · contribs) in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eastern European mailing list and subsequent motions is lifted, effective immediately. Piotrus is reminded that further disruption related to this case may result in the topic ban or other remedies being re-imposed by the Committee. Motion
Sanctions appeal by User:Koavf 30 November 2010 10 January 2011 The restrictions placed upon Koavf (talk · contribs) in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Koavf and in User:Koavf/Community sanction are terminated, effective immediately. Koavf is reminded to edit in the future in full accordance with all Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Motion
Motion regarding Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/West Bank - Judea and Samaria 14 December 2010 6 January 2011 In view of his compliance with Remedy 11 of the West Bank - Judea and Samaria case, the editing restrictions placed on Jayjg (talk · contribs) in that same case are lifted effective at the passage of this motion. Jayjg is reminded that articles in the area of conflict, which is identical to the area of conflict as defined by the Palestine-Israel articles case, remain the subject of discretionary sanctions; should he edit within this topic area, those discretionary sanctions continue to apply. Motion

2010

[edit]
Case name Opened Closed Outcome Relevant links
Motion regarding a case request about User:YellowMonkey 30 November 2010 24 December 2010 The Arbitration Committee has considered the request for arbitration (filed 30 November 2010) concerning administrator actions by YellowMonkey, which followed a request for comment on similar issues (certified 23 November). Although YellowMonkey responded to the original issues raised in the request for comment, he has not edited since 24 November 2010 (six days before the arbitration request was filed) and has not yet been afforded the opportunity to address the new issues raised in the request for comment or in this arbitration request. Accordingly, the arbitration request is declined as premature, and those wishing to engage in dispute resolution on this matter (including YellowMonkey) are directed to the request for comment or other appropriate venues. Motion
Motion regarding Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race and intelligence 29 November 2010 17 December 2010 Remedy 6 ("Mathsci topic-banned by mutual consent") of the Race and Intelligence case is terminated, effective immediately. Motion
Motion regarding Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Speed of light 17 November 2010 18 November 2010 Brews ohare (talk · contribs) is banned from Wikipedia for a period of one year. Motion
Motion regarding Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern European mailing list 21 September 2010 13 November 2010 Remedy 3 of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern European mailing list ("Piotrus topic banned") is replaced with the following:
Piotrus (talk · contribs) is topic banned from articles about national, cultural, or ethnic disputes within Eastern Europe, their associated talk pages, and any process discussion about these topics until March 22, 2011 (the date on which the topic ban imposed in the original decision was to expire).
 Motion
Motion regarding Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Date delinking Ohconfucius 29 October 2010 9 November 2010 Remedy #17 ("Ohconfucius automation") of the Date delinking case is terminated, effective immediately, and Ohconfucius (talk · contribs) is permitted to use automation subject to normal community guidelines. Motion
Motion regarding Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/PHG 2 October 2010 8 November 2010 The existing topic ban imposed in the PHG arbitration on Per Honor et Gloria (talk · contribs) is extended indefinitely. Accordingly, this user is prohibited from editing articles relating to the Mongol Empire, the Crusades, intersections between Crusader states and the Mongol Empire, all broadly defined. He is permitted to make suggestions on talk pages, provided that he interacts with other editors in a civil fashion. Per Honor et Gloria may appeal this sanction no more than once every six months, starting six months from the passing of this motion. Motion
Motion regarding Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern European mailing list 7 July 2010 5 September 2010 Remedy 7 of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern European mailing list "Martintg topic banned") is replaced with the following:
Martintg (talk · contribs) is topic banned from articles about national, cultural, or ethnic disputes within Eastern Europe, their associated talk pages, and any process discussion about these topics, until December 22, 2010 (one year from the closing of the original case).
 Motion
Motion regarding Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tothwolf 5 August 2010 4 September 2010 1) Tothwolf (talk · contribs · logs), Miami33139 (talk · contribs · logs) and JBsupreme (talk · contribs · logs) are banned from interacting with each other, broadly construed. This includes things like not editing each other's userspace, not becoming involved directly with each other in discussions, and not nominating articles for deletion which another one has started. This does not prohibit commenting in the same discussion without directly interacting or editing the same articles so long as they are not directly in conflict. They may request enforcement of this restriction at the Arbitration Enforcement board or by email to the Arbitration mailing list; they may not request enforcement or action against each other for any other reason or at any other venue. Attempts to game this restriction should be treated as a violation of the restriction.

2) Miami33139 (talk · contribs · logs) is subject to an editing restriction for six months. Should Miami33139 make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, assumptions of bad faith or disruptive to deletion discussions, Miami33139 may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement portion of the case. The six months starts from the day this motion passes.
3) Remedy 2 (already updated once) is changed to "JBsupreme (talk · contribs · logs) is subject to an editing restriction for six months. Should JBsupreme make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, assumptions of bad faith, or disruptive to deletion discussions, JBsupreme may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling below." The six months is reset to start from the day this motion passes.

Motion
Motion regarding Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment#Request to amend prior case: Date delinking 11 July 2010 4 September 2010 The Date delinking case is supplemented as follows:

Nonwithstanding remedies #7.1 and #8, Lightmouse (talk · contribs) is permitted to use his Lightbot (talk · contribs) account for a single automation task authorized by the Bot Approvals Group. "Automation" is to be interpreted broadly to refer to any automated or semi-automated tools whatsoever.

 Motion
Motion regarding Brews ohare 4 August 2010 22 August 2010 Brews ohare (talk · contribs) is topic banned from all physics-related pages, topics and discussions, broadly construed, for twelve months. Motion
Motion regarding User:Δ (previously known as Betacommand) 25 July 2010 31 July 2010 The Arbitration Committee provisions for the unbanning of Betacommand are amended as follows: Betacommand (talk · contribs), now editing as Δ (talk · contribs), is authorized to operate a single secondary account, Δbot (talk · contribs), only to perform automated tasks directly related to the clerking of sockpuppet investigations only as specified and authorized by the Bot Approvals Group. Any other use of the bot, broadly interpreted, must be specifically authorized in advance by BAG and endorsed by ArbCom. Motion
Motion regarding Eastern European mailing list 28 June 2010 20 July 2010 Decided on 20 July 2010:

Remedy 20 of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern European mailing list ("Miacek topic banned") is lifted.

Motion
Arbitration motion regarding Speed of light 16 June 2010 7 July 2010 Decided on 7 July 2010:

Amendment 4 to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Speed of light ("Brews ohare advocacy restrictions") expires concurrently with remedy 4.2 of the same case ("Brews ohare topic banned"), as amended by amendment 3 ("Brews ohare").

Motion
Motion regarding Eastern European mailing list 21 June 2010 2 July 2010 Decided on 2 July 2010:

Remedy 17 of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern European mailing list ("Biruitorul topic banned") is lifted.

Motion
Arbitration motion regarding Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tothwolf 16 May 2010 2 July 2010 Decided on 2 July 2010:

Remedy 2 of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tothwolf ("re JBsupreme (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) ) is changed to read "JBsupreme (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is subject to an editing restriction for six months. Should JBsupreme make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, JBsupreme may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling below." The six months starts from the day this motion passes.

Motion
Arbitration motion regarding Pseudoscience 15 June 2010 2 July 2010 Decided on 2 July 2010:

The words "such as Time Cube" are struck from principle #15 of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience ("Obvious pseudoscience"). Finding of fact #9 of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience ("Pseudoscience") is amended to read "Wikipedia contains articles on pseudoscientific ideas which, while notable, have little or no following in the scientific community, often being so little regarded that there is no serious criticism of them by scientific critics."

Motion
Motion regarding Eastern European mailing list 1 June 2010 21 June 2010 Decided on 21 June 2010:

Remedy 10 of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern European mailing list ("Radeksz topic banned") is rescinded.

Motion
Arbitration motion regarding A Nobody 18 May 2010 19 May 2010 Decided on 19 May 2010:

A Nobody (talk · contribs) is banned indefinitely from Wikipedia. This ban will be lifted and Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/A Nobody opened at such time as A Nobody agrees to participate in that case.

Motion
Arbitration motion regarding Eastern European mailing list 15 April 2010 5 May 2010 Decided on 5 May 2010:

The current editing restriction affecting Piotrus (talk · contribs) is to be amended to allow Piotrus to raise issues and discuss improvements to articles otherwise under the ban on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Poland talk page.

motion
Request for clarification: Tang Dynasty 18 February 2010 4 May 2010 Tenmei enters into a mentorship programme for 6 months. Tenmei reminded. clarification, motion
Request for clarification: ban of Offliner (talk · contribs) 11 April 2010 13 April 2010 Clarification on the reason for the ban requested and provided. requestposted notice
Motion regarding Altenmann 10 April 2010 13 April 2010

Decided on 13 April 2010:

The administrator permissions of Altenmann (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) are removed for abuse of administrator permissions in violation of an Arbitration Committee remedy [20], abuse of administrator permissions by closing deletion discussions in which he has commented using one or more alternate accounts, and inappropriate use of alternate accounts in violation of Wikipedia:Sock puppetry. Altemann is restricted to one account. He may not change username without the explicit authorization of the Arbitration Committee. Altemann may seek to regain adminship through a request for adminship.

Motion link
Motions regarding Per Honor et Gloria 16 February 2010 30 March 2010

Decided on 30 March 2010:

1) PHG's mentorship is renewed

For the next year:
  • Per Honor et Gloria (talk · contribs) is required to use sources that are in English and widely available.
  • Per Honor et Gloria may also use sources in French that are widely available—if a special language mentor fluent in French is appointed. The special language mentors selected must be approved by the Arbitration Committee. Mentors shall ensure that Wikipedia's verifiability policy on foreign language sources is followed—that quality English sources and reliably-published translations will be used in preference to foreign language sources and original translations. When Per Honor et Gloria uses sources in languages other than English, he is required to notify his mentor of their use.
and
  • Per Honor et Gloria is required to use a mentor to assist with sourcing the articles that he edits. The mentors selected must be approved by the Arbitration Committee. In case of doubt raised by another user in respect of a source, citation, or translation provided by Per Honor et Gloria, the mentors' views shall be followed instead of those of Per Honor et Gloria.
Angusmclellan (talk · contribs) is thanked by the committee for serving admirably as PHG's mentor, and it is hoped that he will continue to serve in that capacity.

2) PHG's topic ban is renewed

ArbCom renews the topic ban from the PHG arbitration. Per Honor et Gloria (talk · contribs) is prohibited from editing articles relating to the Mongol Empire, the Crusades, intersections between Crusader states and the Mongol Empire, and Hellenistic India—all broadly defined. This topic ban will last for a period of one year. He is permitted to make suggestions on talk pages, provided that he interacts with other editors in a civil fashion.
 Motion link
Arbitration motion regarding Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Speed of light 23 March 2010 29 March 2010

Decided on 29 March 2010:

a)Brews ohare's topic ban is modified to expire in 90 days from the date that this motion passes. The supplementary restrictions of Brews ohare (namely, restrictions from posting on physics related disputes or the Wikipedia/Wikipedia talk namespaces) will also expire 90 days from the date that this motion passes. Brews ohare is instructed that continued violations of his existing restrictions will lead to the 90 day timer being reset in additional to any discretionary enforcement action taken.

b)Count Iblis, David Tombe, Likebox, and Hell in a Bucket are indefinitely restricted from advocacy for or commenting on Brews ohare, broadly construed. Should any of these editors violate this restriction, they may be blocked for up to 24 hours by any uninvolved administrator. After three blocks, the maximum block length shall rise to one week.

Motion link and Arbitration subpage
Arbitration motion regarding Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/A Nobody 14 March 2010 19 March 2010

Decided on 19 March 2010:

This case is accepted, but will not be opened unless and until A Nobody (talk · contribs) returns to Wikipedia. If A Nobody does so under any account or I.P., he/she is required to notify the Committee.

Motion link and Arbitration subpage
Motion regarding Durova and Shoemaker's Holiday 9 March 2010 15 March 2010

Decided on 15 March 2010:

The Arbitration Committee notes and deplores the acrimonious nature of the dispute between Shoemaker's Holiday and Durova, and the way it has been needlessly prolonged and intensified on- and off-wiki by both parties, and resolves that:

a) While noting the provisions in paragraph (b):

i) Shoemaker's Holiday shall neither communicate with nor comment upon either directly or indirectly Durova on any page in the English Wikipedia.
ii) Durova shall neither communicate with nor comment upon either directly or indirectly Shoemaker's Holiday on any page in the English Wikipedia.
iii) Both parties are expressly prohibited from responding in kind to perceived violations of sections (i) and (ii) above and should instead report the perceived violation to the Arbitration Committee by email.

b) Both parties may, within reason, comment within the same pages (for example, in the Wikipedia:Featured Pictures topic area and similar) providing their comments do not relate directly or indirectly to the other party. They may also, within reason, revert blatant third-party vandalism to each others' or shared works.

c) Should either Shoemaker's Holiday or Durova violate the letter or spirit of these restrictions, they may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator for short periods of up to one week; after the third such violation, the maximum block length shall be one year. All blocks shall be logged below. Appeals of any blocks may be made to the Arbitration Committee.

Motion link and Arbitration subpage
Motions regarding Trusilver and Arbitration Enforcement 1 March 2010 15 March 2010

Decided on 15 March 2010:

1) The unblock of User:Brews ohare by User:Trusilver was done without the explicit written consent of the Arbitration Committee, or a full and active community discussion as required. The Arbitration Committee explicitly rejects Trusilver's defense of WP:IAR in this situation. However, since the block has since expired, it will not be reapplied. For misuse of his administrator tools, User:Trusilver's administrator rights are revoked. He may regain them through a new WP:RfA or through a request to the Arbitration Committee.

2) The Arbitration Committee modifies the Restriction on arbitration enforcement activity as follows:

Administrators are prohibited from reversing or overturning (explicitly or in substance) any action taken by another administrator pursuant to the terms of an active arbitration remedy, and explicitly noted as being taken to enforce said remedy, except:

(a) with the written authorization of the Committee, or
(b) following a clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors at a community discussion noticeboard (such as WP:AN or WP:ANI). If consensus in such discussions is hard to judge or unclear, the parties should submit a request for clarification on the proper page.

Any administrator that overturns an enforcement action outside of these circumstances shall be subject to appropriate sanctions, up to and including desysopping, at the discretion of the Committee.

Administrators who consistently make questionable enforcement administrative actions, or whose actions are consistently overturned by community or Arbitration Committee discussions may be asked to cease performing such activities or be formally restricted from taking such activities.

Motion link
Arbitration motion regarding Ireland article names 17 February 2010 5 March 2010

Decided on 5 March 2010:

1) The Arbitration Committee notes that the conditions put forward by remedies during the Ireland article names arbitration case were fulfilled to the Committee's satisfaction and that, as a consequence, remedy 4 ("[...] no further page moves discussions related to these articles shall be initiated for a period of 2 years.") is in force until September 18, 2011.

2) While the related matter of how to refer to Ireland/Republic of Ireland in other places (such as articles) is not directly covered by the aforementioned remedies, the Committee takes notes of the existence of a de facto consensus on the matter owing to the stability of the Ireland manual of style and enjoins the community to avoid needlessly rehashing the disputes.

Motion link
Motions regarding Herostratus and Viridae 2 March 2010 5 March 2010

Decided on 5 March 2010:

1) Herostratus strongly admonished

For failing to adhere to the standard of decorum expected of administrators, and for unblocking himself in direct contravention of blocking policy, Herostratus is strongly admonished.

2) Viridae admonished

For blocking another administrator without full knowledge of the situation at hand, and without attempting to contact the administrator to obtain such knowledge, Viridae is admonished for the poor judgment exercised in this incident.
 Motion link
Arbitration motion regarding Eastern European mailing list 28 January 2010 13 February 2010

Decided on 13 February 2010:

1) Topic ban narrowed (Radeksz)

The topic ban applied to Radeksz (talk · contribs) is amended. Radeksz may edit articles in Category:Poland related unreferenced BLP as of February 8, 2010, solely to add references and to make such incidental changes as may be necessary to bring the article into compliance with the sources used. In the event that any such edits become contentious, Radeksz is expected to cease involvement in the relevant article.

2) Topic ban narrowed (Martintg)

The topic ban applied to Martintg (talk · contribs) is amended. Martintg may edit the articles listed here solely to add references and to make such incidental changes as may be necessary to bring the article into compliance with the sources used. In the event that any such edits become contentious, Martintg is expected to cease involvement in the relevant article.
 Motion link
Arbitration motion regarding Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abd-William M. Connolley 11 January 2010 2 February 2010

Decided on 2 February 2010:

1) Abd and William M. Connolley prohibited from interacting

Abd (talk · contribs) and William M. Connolley (talk · contribs) shall not interact with each other, nor comment in any way (directly or indirectly) about each other, on any page in Wikipedia. Should either editor do so, he may be blocked by any administrator for a short time, up to one week.

Motion link
Arbitration motion regarding User:Craigy144 20 January 2010 30 January 2010

Decided on 30 January 2010:

Summary motion in lieu of a full case:

  1. Key principle:

    Administrators are trusted members of the community and are expected to lead by example and follow Wikipedia policies. Occasional mistakes are entirely compatible with this as administrators are not expected to be perfect though they are expected to learn from experience and from justified criticisms of their actions. However, consistently or egregiously poor judgment or sustained disruption of Wikipedia is incompatible with this trusted role and administrators who repeatedly engage in inappropriate activity may be desysopped by the Arbitration Committee.

  2. Summary of evidence:

    (i) Craigy144 has repeatedly posted text and images which do not fully comply with the relevant policies.

    (ii) Craigy144's actions have received much comment but he/she has failed to respond to it.

    (iii) Craigy144 has not so far responded to this Request for Arbitration nor provided an explanation for his/her conduct.

  3. Remedy:

    Craigy144 is temporarily desysopped until such time as he/she provides the committee with a satisfactory explanation of his/her conduct.

 Motion link
Arbitration motion regarding Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern European mailing list 23 January 2010 28 January 2010

Decided on 28 January 2010:

Malik Shabazz, Xavexgoem, and Durova are authorized to act as proxies for Piotrus by editing, at his direction, the Lech Wałęsa article, its talk page, and any process pages directly related to its nomination for Good Article status.

Motion link
Arbitration motion regarding Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern European mailing list 22 January 2010 28 January 2010

Decided on 28 January 2010:

1) Topic ban narrowed

The topic ban applied to Radeksz (talk · contribs) is amended. Radeksz may edit the articles listed here solely to add references and to make such incidental changes as may be necessary to bring the article into compliance with the sources used. In the event that any such edits become contentious, Radeksz is expected to cease involvement in the relevant article.

2) Tagging and categorizing of unreferenced Poland-related BLPs allowed

The topic ban applied to Radeksz (talk · contribs) is amended. Radeksz may create a category for unreferenced Polish-related biographies of living persons, tag articles for inclusion in that category, and announce the category's existence at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Poland.
 Motion link
Motion regarding Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Speed of light 13 January 2010 26 January 2010

Decided on 19 January 2010:

1) Exception to topic ban

Brews ohare (talk · contribs) is permitted to participate in featured article candidacy discussions for "Speed of light" for the sole purpose of discussing the images used in the article. This shall constitute an exception to the topic ban imposed on him (remedy#4.2).

2) Second exception to topic ban

Brews ohare (talk · contribs) is permitted to edit images used in the "Speed of light" article to address issues regarding the images that arise in connection with the article's featured article candidacies. This shall constitute an exception to the topic ban imposed on him (remedy#4.2).

Motion Link
Motion regarding BLP deletions 22 January 2010 23 January 2010

Decided on 20 January 2010: The Committee has examined this matter. In light of the following considerations:

  • That the core principles of the policy on biographies of living people—in particular, neutrality and verifiability—have been set forth by the Wikimedia Foundation as a mandate for all projects;
  • That the policy on biographies of living people, and this Committee's ruling in the Badlydrawnjeff case, call for the removal of poorly sourced and controversial content, and places the burden of demonstrating compliance on those who wish to see the content included;
  • That unsourced biographies of living people may contain seemingly innocuous statements which are actually damaging, but there is no way to determine whether they do without providing sources;
  • That Wikipedia, through the founding principle of "Ignore All Rules", has traditionally given administrators wide discretion to enforce policies and principles using their own best judgment; and
  • That administrators have been instructed to aggressively enforce the policy on biographies of living people.

The Committee has determined that:

  • The deletions carried out by Rdm2376, Scott MacDonald, and various other administrators are a reasonable exercise of administrative discretion to enforce the policy on biographies of living people.
  • The administrators who carried out these actions are commended for their efforts to enforce policy and uphold the quality of the encyclopedia, but are urged to conduct future activities in a less chaotic manner.
  • The administrators who interfered with these actions are reminded that the enforcement of the policy on biographies of living people takes precedence over mere procedural concerns.

The Committee hereby proclaims an amnesty for all editors who may have overstepped the bounds of policy in this matter. Everyone is asked to continue working together to improve and uphold the goals of our project. The Committee recommends, in particular, that a request for comments be opened to centralize discussion on the most efficient way to proceed with the effective enforcement of the policy on biographies of living people.

Motion Link
Arbitration motion regarding Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Falun Gong 14 January 2010 19 January 2010

Decided on 19 January 2010:

Imposition of discretionary sanctions

The Falun Gong decision is modified as follows:
(a) The article probation clause (remedy #1) is rescinded.
(b) Standard discretionary sanctions (Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions) are authorized for "Falun Gong" and all closely related articles.
This modification does not affect any actions previously taken under the article probation clause; these actions shall remain in force.
 Motion link

2009

[edit]
Case name Opened Closed Outcome Relevant links
GiacomoReturned 21 December 2009 23 December 2009

Decided on 23 December 2009 :

This request for a case is declined. The following note is to be written into the record:

  1. the related Audit Subcommittee report is endorsed;
  2. the original events have already generated a disproportionate degree of drama;
  3. the interests of the project are best served by all concerned completely disengaging.
 Motion link
Motion to amend User:Jack Merridew's 2008 unban motion 11 December 2009 14 December 2009

Decided on 14 December 2009 :

Jack Merridew is to be commended for making a clean return from an indefinite ban. On review of the past year, the Arbitration Committee replaces the previous motion with the following conditions:

  1. User:Jack Merridew agrees to edit from one account only "Jack Merridew" on all WMF wikis with the exception of an additional bot account approved through the regular process, and agrees to not edit using open proxies.
  2. User:Jack Merridew is to seek out advisers to assist him in transitioning from a formal mentorship to unrestricted editing.
  3. User:Jack Merridew agrees that the same as any other editor, he is to follow Wikipedia policy and guidelines, and follow dispute resolution processes to resolve editing conflicts with the understanding that misconduct could result in blocks or Community editing restrictions.
  4. User:Jack Merridew will note his agreement with the terms of this motion on this page.
 Motion link

Mentor discussion link
Motions to amend Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/ADHD 20 October 2009 8 November 2009

Decided on 8 November 2009 :

Scuro (talk · contribs) is topic banned from all pages, topics, and discussions related to attention-deficit hyperactivity, broadly defined, for twelve months.

Motion link
Motion to amend Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Date delinking 12 October 2009 21 October 2009

Decided on 21 October 2009 :

Wikipedia:Date formatting and linking poll, Wikipedia talk:Full-date unlinking bot#RFC, and Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Full-date unlinking bot indicate that Full-date unlinking bot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) fulfills the requirement for "a Community approved process for the mass delinking" in "1.3 Mass date linking" and the requirement for "[d]ate delinking bots [performing] in a manner approved by the Bot Approvals Group" in "2.1 Date delinking bots". The Committee thanks the participants for their efforts and encourages them to continue with their constructive work and consensus building.

Motion link
Disclosure of known alternate accounts 1 October 2009 11 October 2009

Decided on 11 October 2009 :

In response to a case request submitted by User:Jehochman the committee decided to reject the case and instead deal with the matter by motion.

Motion 1: GlassCobra
GlassCobra (talk · contribs) nominated Law (talk · contribs) for adminship. Law was an undisclosed account of previously 9-month blocked and desysopped editor The undertow (talk · contribs), and GlassCobra made his nomination while aware of that fact and without disclosing it. GlassCobra has since agreed that this was a breach of trust incompatible with his holding the position of an ArbCom clerk and has resigned from that post at the Committee's request. GlassCobra has apologized, pledged not to repeat such an error, and is willing to accept a sanction.

Motion 2: GlassCobra admonished
GlassCobra is strongly admonished for having knowingly promoted the request for adminship of an editor he knew was using an undisclosed alternate account. He was aware that knowledge of the former account's history would materially affect the request, and displayed poor judgment by failing to disclose that information along with his support.

Motion 3: GlassCobra desysopped
GlassCobra is desysopped for having knowingly promoted the request for adminship of an editor he knew was using an undisclosed alternate account. He was aware that knowledge of the former account's history would materially affect the request, and breached the community's trust by failing to disclose that information along with his support. Adminship may be regained by request to the arbitration committee or via the usual means.

Motion 4: Jayron32 admonished
Jayron32 (talk · contribs) is strongly admonished for having knowingly promoted the request for adminship of an editor he knew was using an undisclosed alternate account. He was aware that knowledge of the former account's history would materially affect the request, and displayed poor judgment by failing to disclose that information along with his support.

Motion 5: Jennavecia admonished
Jennavecia (talk · contribs) is strongly admonished for having knowingly promoted the request for adminship of an editor she knew was using an undisclosed alternate account. She was aware that knowledge of the former account's history would materially affect the request, and displayed poor judgment by failing to disclose that information along with her support.

Motion 6: Jennavecia's resignation
Jennavecia resigned her status as an administrator on October 9, 2009, while this matter was pending. Per normal practice regarding resignation under controversial circumstances, she may apply at requests for adminship or to the Arbitration Committee for the restoration of her administrator status at any time.

Motion 7: Administrators reminded and encouraged
Administrators are reminded that while they have no obligation to enforce any particular rule, they do have an obligation to refrain from violating or assisting in the violation of community or ArbCom imposed sanctions, as with any other editor. Administrators who choose not to address block evasion themselves by blocking the new account, are strongly encouraged to notify Arbcom or checkusers of apparent ban or block evasion when they become aware of it. It is in the best interests of the project and the user(s) involved to address these situations early.

Case rejection diff

Motion 1 link
Motion 2 link
Motion 3 link
Motion 4 link
Motion 5 link
Motion 6 link
Motion 7 link

With respect to User:Law and User:The undertow 30 September 2009 11 October 2009

Decided on 11 October 2009 :

The Arbitration Committee has been informed that Law (talk · contribs) is an alternate account of The undertow (talk · contribs), and this has been confirmed with the user involved. User:Law has now resigned his administrator tools.[21] At the time that the User:Law account was created, User:The undertow was subject to an Arbitration Committee block.

General motion
The Arbitration Committee notes the resignation of administrator tools by Law, and further notes that this resignation is under controversial circumstances. The user is restricted to one account, The undertow. He is required to notify the Arbitration Committee in advance should he wish to change usernames or create a new account, in accordance with Arbitration Committee enforcement procedures initiated in June 2009.[22]

Motion 1 - The undertow is banned 6 months:
The undertow is banned from wikipedia for six months.

General Motion Link

Motion 1 Link

Date delinking 19 July 2009 17 August 2009

Decided on 17 August 2009 :

Having considered all the requests for amendment and requests for clarification submitted following the decision in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Date delinking, the Arbitration Committee decides as follows:

(1) All remedies in the decision providing that a specified user is topic-banned from editing or discussing "style and editing guidelines" (or similar wording) are modified by replacing these words with the words "style and editing guidelines relating to the linking or unlinking of dates";
(2) All remedies in the decision providing that a specified user is "prohibited from reversion of changes which are principally stylistic, except where all style elements are prescribed in the applicable style guideline" are modified by replacing these words with the words "prohibited from reverting the linking or unlinking of dates";
(3) All editors whose restrictions are being narrowed are reminded to abide by all applicable policies and guidelines in their editing, so that further controversies such as the one that led to the arbitration case will not arise, and any disagreements concerning style guidelines can be addressed in a civil and efficient fashion;
(4) Any party who believes the Date delinking decision should be further amended may file a new request for amendment. To allow time to evaluate the effect of the amendments already made, editors are asked to wait at least 30 days after this motion is passed before submitting any further amendment requests.
 Motion Link
Everyking 3 22 July 2009 15 August 2009

Decided on 15 August 2009 : Having considered the request to lift the remaining restriction (remedy X) in the EK3 case, the Arbitration Committee decides that the request is denied, but that the indefinite nature of the restriction is altered so that the restriction will now expire one year after the enactment of this motion. This expiration date of one year will be reset following any future unsuccessful appeals of this restriction

Motion Link
The Rambling Man 13 August 2009 14 August 2009

Decided on 14 August 2009:

The Arbitration Committee:

  1. Finds that the circumstances of The Rambling Man's resignation during the Date delinking case do not preclude his restoration to bureaucrat status by request, in the discretion of the bureaucrats, and that a new request for bureaucratship is not required.
  2. Encourages any users concerned that the policies and procedures governing restoration of administrator and bureaucrat privileges following a resignation may be unfair or unclear to convene a community discussion on an appropriate policy page and to seek to develop a community-written policy on these matters.
 Motion Link
Jimbo Wales - Bishonen 20 July 2009 5 August 2009

Decided on 5 August 2009 :

  • 1.1) On 21 May, a user added the {{retired}} template to the userpage of another user. An administrator, Bishonen, reverted the addition with the edit summary "Rm 'retired' tag, which is none of [your] business". The user then stated on Bishonen's talk page that "You do not decide what is and what is not my business. Wikipedia is everyone's business..." to which Bishonen replied with "Yes, I do, you little shit. Don't interfere with [another user's] page. Now get lost. Shoo!" The user initiated a discussion about the placement of the tag and Bishonen's comment at the administrators' incidents noticeboard (during which Bishonen made several more condescending remarks towards the user), and as a result of this discussion Jimbo Wales blocked Bishonen for three hours.
  • 1.2) Although people do not "own" their user pages, editors should avoid – with certain well-established exceptions (of which adding retirement templates is not one) – making substantial changes to other people's user pages without their consent. The committee notes the user subsequently apologised for his edit.
  • 1.3) Bishonen's response to the user was grossly uncivil. Her subsequent comments (on the noticeboard and on her talk page) were condescending and unrepentant. While, in this context, a block may be justified on civility grounds, its delayed timing and short duration - and prior interaction between the blocking and blocked editors - made it controversial. Additionally, the block was placed some time after Bishonen had finished posting, at a time when no ongoing conduct was prevented by the block.
  • 1.4) Jimbo Wales did not notify Bishonen immediately of the block, as is required by blocking policy, and it was not until half an hour after announcing it at the incidents noticeboard that he did so. In his announcement of the block on the incidents noticeboard, Jimbo Wales stated "This all seems sadly unbecoming to me, and a direct consequence of our having been too tolerant, for too long, of toxic personalities". Although the use of this latter phrase was later clarified as intending to refer to incivility in general, the phrasing was careless and has been interpreted, reasonably, by some editors as referring to Bishonen.
  • 1.5) The Committee acknowledges (i) Bishonen's recognition that "The way I spoke to [the user] was wrong, especially for an admin" and (ii) Jimbo Wales' permanent abdication of the use of the blocking tool. In light of the foregoing, the committee need take no further action at this time.
 Motion Link
Aitias 1 August 2009 4 August 2009

Decided on 4 August 2009 :

  • The administrative permissions of Aitias (talk · contribs · former admin: blocks · protections · deletions · rights · meta · local rights) are removed for disruptive and inappropriate conduct including conduct involving his administrative duties. (Please note that Aitias resigned his tools under a cloud after these motions were passed but prior to their enactment, however this motion and the subsequent note were explicitly requested by the Committee to still be enacted and published.)
  • Aitias may seek to regain adminship via WP:RFA or by application to the Arbitration Committee.
  • Aitias is restricted to one account and is required to comply with the applicable renaming procedures for restricted users, viewable here, should he rename.
 Motion Link
Geogre 29 July 2009 1 August 2009

Decided on 1 August 2009 :

Motion Link
Geogre 23 July 2009 29 July 2009

Decided on 29 July 2009 :

  • Utgard Loki is indefinitely blocked. Geogre is indefinitely prohibited from maintaining any other alternate account without disclosing it publicly. Geogre is strongly admonished for sockpuppeting and his actions related thereto. Geogre is desysopped and may regain adminship via the usual means.
 Motion Link
Everyking desysopping appeal 17 June 2009 18 July 2009

Decided on 18 July 2009 :

  • The Arbitration Committee will not undo their desysopping of Everyking, but recommend he pursue reconfirmation through RfA.
 RFAR Link
Motion regarding Golan Heights 01 July 2009 16 July 2009

Decided on 16 July 2009 :

  • The arbitration committee advises that one or more neutral admins chair a new and structured Request for Comment on the disputed naming guidelines on the Golan Heights within a two month time-frame.
 RFAR Link
User:Coffee resyop request 01 July 2009 03 July 2009

Decided on 03 July 2009 :

  • Coffee's administrator privileges are restored, effective immediately. He is reminded to abide by all policies and guidelines governing the conduct of administrators.
 RFAR Link
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/West Bank - Judea and Samaria 25 May 2009 28 May 2009

Decided on 28 May 2009:

Link
Vintagekits/Kittybrewster/BrownHairedGirl 5 May 2009 13 May 2009

Decided on 13 May 2009 :

  • The community enacted topic ban on user:Vintagekits and user:Kittybrewster 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. user:BrownHairedGirl 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.
 RFAR Link
User:EddieSegoura ban appeal 17 April 2009 22 April 2009

Decided on 22 April 2009 :

RFAR Link
AN Link
User:Mitchazenia 05 April 2009 08 April 2009

Passed on 08 April 09 :

  • user:Mitchazenia may regain his adminship via RFA, request to the arbitration committee, or request to a bureaucrat.
 Link
User:Aitias 15 March 2009 22 March 2009

Passed on 18 Mar 09 :

  • (1) This request for arbitration to be temporarily suspended for up to 72 hours to allow Aitias to officially advise the Committee during this time whether he intends to continue as an administrator. Should Aitias confirm that he will not resign as an administrator, or fail to respond within 72 hours, then the arbitration case will be opened unless otherwise directed by the committee.

By 22 Mar 09, user:Aitias has not voluntarily requested that his administrator access be removed. The Commitee then passed three additional motions, as of follow :

  • (2) In order to avoid a ruling without the participation of the main party to the case, this request for arbitration is suspended until Aitias returns to editing. After this motion passes the Committee will invoke an immediate temporary suspension of his adminship. When Aitias returns to editing, he may contact the Committee and request the return of his adminship, which would trigger an additional ruling by the Committee about this current request for arbitration; or as an alternative, he may submit an RFA on his return to editing in lieu of a case.
  • (3) The suspension of Aitias's adminship becomes a permanent desysop if he doesn't return within 6 months. Thereafter, Aitias may request adminship again through an RfA only.
  • (4) Aitias is instructed to edit Wikipedia English with only the User:Aitias account until the issues in this dispute are resolved.
 Archive
User:Bishzilla 13 January 2008 21 December 2008 Motion: 2) user:Bishzilla is strongly admonished for her conduct in this matter. She is advised not to block users to force further discussion or action on an issue, nor to increase the pace of an issue, and not to take administrator actions with respect to disputes in which she is involved. Bishzilla is warned that any further such incidents are likely to lead to the suspension or revocation of her administrator privileges. Motion
User:Hemanshu 31 December 2008 03 January 2009 Motion: 1) As evidenced by Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Hemanshu, the community has lost its confidence in Hemanshu as an admin. His failure to communicate in an effort to address concerns is also disconcerting, as is his being blocked three times in the last few months. Admins need to be held to a high standard and retain the confidence of the community. Therefore Hemanshu is desysopped. NOTE: motion quickly passed 11-1-2 after significant socking found (some votes in the motion were cast before the new evidence emerged). See Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Hemanshu and the checkuser concerns noted in this announcement. archive diff.

2008

[edit]
Case name Opened Closed Outcome Relevant links
User:Moreschi 16 December 2008 20 December 2008 Motion: 1.3) Based upon the events of December 16, 2008, user:Moreschi is admonished:
(A) Not to reverse blocks imposed by another administrator without the consent of the blocking administrator or on-wiki consensus;
(B) Not to reverse actions taken by or on behalf of the Arbitration Committee acting as a committee, and to consult with an arbitrator if he finds the status of an action unclear; and
(C) Not to make disparaging comments about other administrators in log entries of his administrator actions. 		motions
Peter Damian restrictions 5 December 2008 17 December 2008 Motion: editing restrictions lifted archive diff
Jack Merridew ban review motion 16 November 2008 9 December 2008 Motion: indef ban lifted with editing restrictions. WP:RFAR/Jack Merridew ban review motion
Motion on Tobias Conradi case 8 November 2008 29 November 2008 Motions: one, comprised of various parts—including: principles regarding user space. WP:RFAR Oldid permalink
Motion: re SlimVirgin
(also covers Arbitration Enforcement and Giano) 		November 23 2008 November 27 2008 Motions:
  1. (1) Administrators are prohibited from reversing or overturning (explicitly or in substance) any action taken by another administrator pursuant to the terms of an active arbitration remedy[..] passed 7-1
  2. (3A) user:SlimVirgin is desysopped for a period of six months passed 6-1 (1 abstention)
  3. (4) no enforcement action relating to Giano's civility parole shall be taken without the explicit written agreement of the Committee passed 7-0 (1 abstension)
 archived subpage
Request for clarification on editing arbitration policy September 28 2008 October 15 2008 Question about arbitration policy. No motion, but discussion did appear to move to Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008/Policy Changes, and then subsequently to Wikipedia:Arbitration policy proposed updating. archive diff
Request for clarification on topic bans September 23 2008 September 27 2008 Question of best place for a topic ban discussion resolved by making a redirect. archive diff
Request for arbitration on Unapproved admin bots September 17 2008 September 25 2008 RFAR was declined but a motion resulted that recapped issues in the case, encouraged the community to continue discussing the issue and admonished User:Prodego for his block of User:Misza13. Due to its length, the full closed motion is on this talk page. archive diff
Motion in E104421-Tajik 12 September 2008 13 September 2008 1) Remedy 1 in E104421-Tajik is rescinded terminated.

2) Tajik (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is placed on an editing restriction. Tajik is limited to one revert per page per week (excepting obvious vandalism), and is required to discuss any content reversions on the page's talk page. Should he exceed this limit or fail to discuss a content reversion, he may be briefly blocked, up to a month in the event of repeated violations. All blocks are to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/E104421-Tajik#Log of blocks, bans, and restrictions.

diff
Request for clarification on RFA options for User:Coffee and User:PeterSymonds August 31 2008 September 1 2008 motion passed 7-0, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Coffee and User:PeterSymonds, having resigned their administrator status while under scrutiny when their accounts were compromised, may regain their status either through the usual RFA process, or by application to ArbCom, at each editor's own discretion.

 archive diff
Steve Crossin, Chet B Long, PeterSymonds, and inappropriate account sharing August 23 2008 August 30 2008 motion rejected, Chet and Peter desyssoped, Steve taking a break archive diff
User:Can't sleep, clown will eat me July 18 2008 July 18 2008 Desysop (until Can't sleep contacts arbcom) perm rfar link, meta request fulfilled

2007

[edit]
Case name Opened Closed Outcome Relevant links
Lyndon LaRouche 17 October 2007 27 October 2007 The findings of fact of the original decision Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche/Proposed decision, closed in September 2004, referred to two problematic behaviours:
  • a pattern of adding original material, not an editor's own, but that of Lyndon LaRouche, to Wikipedia articles,
  • a pattern of political advocacy and propaganda advancing the viewpoints of Lyndon LaRouche and his political movement.

The Arbitration Committee affirms that editor behaviour amounting to such patterns is not accepted on Wikipedia. Administrators should draw the attention of editors to these standing principles, which should be known by any editor engaging closely in LaRouche-related articles. After due warning, explanation, and reference to the basic unacceptability of POV pushing on Wikipedia, proportionate blocks may be applied by administrators. Cases of difficulty may be referred directly to the Committee for clarification.

It is also pointed out that the principles of Wikipedia:Biographies of living people, formulated since that first case, must be applied strictly to all biographical material appearing in articles relating to the LaRouche movement.

Permalink to motion
Carl Hewitt 13 October 2007 16 October 2007
  1. The ban on Carl Hewitt's autobiographical editing was not time-limited and still applies.
  2. The scope of the ban should include Hewitt's current research areas, such as concurrency, and all promotion of the value of the work of his past students such as William Clinger, work on the actor model, logic programming, and accounts of the development of major concepts of theoretical computer science. This is in addition to areas already ruled off-limits.
  3. Given the scale of apparent evasions of the ruling during 2007, by the use of large numbers of IP numbers from the West Coast of the USA, semi-protection of affected articles may be applied for periods of up to one month, and to their Talk pages in cases of overbearing comments.
 Permalink to motion
Instantnood 3 30 July 2007 6 September 2007 I move that the restrictions, now over a year old, from the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Instantnood 3 case on editor Huaiwei be lifted. While Huaiwei appears to have been involved in some edit wars and has received a number of 3RR blocks, I do not believe that the probation and limits on participation remain relevant at this point. Permalink to motion
Zeq-Zero0000 8 June 2007 10 June 2007 Any future use of administrative tools by Zero0000 in relation to someone with whom he is in a dispute, will result in immediate desyopping once it is brought to the attention of ArbCom. This specifically includes, but is not limited to, administrative action against or related to Zeq. Permalink to motion
Waldorf education 2 June 2007 6 June 2007 Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Waldorf_education#Pete_K_banned applies to user pages with respect to content which relates to Waldorf education, PLANS, Rudolf Steiner, orAnthroposophy. Based on [23], [24], [25], and [26]. Permalink to motion
Tony Sidaway 28 April 2007 7 May 2007 Crotalus horridus' probation shall terminate six months from the date of the acceptance this motion or the date of the last enforcement action, if any, under his probation, whichever is later. Permalink to motion
Highways 31 March 2007 3 April 2007 User:JohnnyBGood has requested the same relief from probation as granted to User:Rschen7754 and User:PHenry. I am inclined to grant it. I am not inclined to extend such relief to User:SPUI, based on repeated violations of the probation, but I also wish to propose that restrictions on SPUI terminate twelve months after his last probation violation. Permalink to motion
Highways 16 March 2007 26 March 2007 Rschen7754 (talk · contribs) and PHenry (talk · contribs) have appealed their continued probation in the Highways case. I believe that their continued probation is not necessary and move to end it forthwith. Permalink to motion

2006

[edit]
Case name Opened Closed Outcome Relevant links
Ulritz 17 November 2006 18 November 2006 The anonymous editor who edits from the 194.9.5.0/24 range and was also a part to Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Ulritz shall be subject to the same restrictions as Ulritz and Rex Germanus for edit warring at involved articles. See #Ulritz_placed_on_Probation and #Ulritz_placed_on_revert parole for the applicable restrictions. Permalink to motion
Irishpunktom 20 September 2006 22 September 2006 The article ban (remedy 1) for Dbiv (talk · contribs) and Irishpunktom (talk · contribs) from Peter Tatchell is lifted, and replaced with Probation for Dbiv also. Any administrator, in the exercise of their judgement for reasonable cause, may ban Dbiv from any page which he disrupts by inappropriate editing. He must be notified on his talk page of any bans, and a note must also placed on WP:AN/I. Violations of these bans or paroles imposed shall be enforced by appropriate blocks, up to a month in the event of repeat violations. All bans are to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Irishpunktom#Log of blocks and bans. Irishpunktom: Dbiv
Eternal Equinox 10 September 2006 17 September 2006 Eternal Equinox continues to edit anonymously, both disrupting articles and continuing to violate bans received under probation for the disruption. Eternal Equinox is hereby limited to one publicly known account, preferably Eternal Equinox. All edits by Eternal Equinox under another account or an IP address shall be treated as edits by a banned user. Permalink to motion
Freestylefrappe 10 September 2006 12 September 2006 Since being desysopped in his arbitration case, Freestylefrappe has had a number of different accounts, including Tchadienne (talk · contribs), KI (talk · contribs), Republitarian (talk · contribs), and Ya ya ya ya ya ya (talk · contribs), some of which have engaged in disruptive editing. I propose that his editing be limited to one account so that admins will have a consistent history of his activities. Permalink to motion
Aucaman 28 August 2006 11 September 2006 Since being placed on Probation for edit warring in the Aucaman case in May, Khoikhoi has demonstrated that the restriction is no longer necessary or warranted. He has been very prolific, invaluable in tracking down banned users Bonaparte and -Inanna-, contributed to at least one recent featured article. Most importantly, I see no signs of the edit warring that caused him to be included in the ruling.

I propose that, in view of good behavior, the probation placed on Khoikhoi (talk · contribs) be lifted so that he is no longer under any Arbitration Committee restrictions.

Permalink to motion
Zeq 20 July 2006 18 August 2006 Motion to ban Zeq for a week for creating an attack article regarding User:Homeontherange (article has been deleted) diff will be available to Arbitration Committee members. Permalink to motion
Everyking 14 July 2006 27 July 2006
  1. Everyking is banned for two weeks for recent offenses
  2. Everyking's current prohibitions (his ban from editing the ANI, and from commenting on other admin's actions except for their talk pages, RFC, and RFA) - set to expire in November - are extended indefinitely for one year, until November 2007.
  3. Everyking is placed on standard probation for all pop music articles - any admin may ban him from any/all of them for any misbehavior on his part
  4. Should EK harass other admins over their non-editorial actions, any admin may block him for up to two weeks per incident, escalating to one year per incident after the fifth one.
 Permalink to motion
Guanaco, MarkSweep, et al 28 April 2006 9 June 2006

Since the conclusion of the Arbitration case, StrangerInParadise (talk · contribs) has continued to assume bad faith and make disruptive edits with the StrangerInParadise account while maintaining a separate, older, user account. Thus, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Guanaco, MarkSweep, et al is modified to include the following remedy:

StrangerInParadise restricted to one user account

StrangerInParadise is restricted to one user account. Any sockpuppet accounts will be blocked indefinitely and the main account blocked for up to 48 hours if this is violated.

Permalink to motion
Lyndon LaRouche 2 30 April 2006 5 May 2006 Despite involvement in 3 arbitrations, two of which found and prohibited continued advocacy, Herschelkrustofsky (talk · contribs) has continued to violate his arbitration remedies, continued advocacy, continued edit warring, and continued incivility and assmptions of bad faith (see for example [27]).

The background for the most recent ban is at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive91#HK_enforcement. Accordingly, I propose that Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche 2 be modified to include the following remedy:

Herschelkrustofsky banned

For violations of his parole, and continued disruption by advocacy, edit warring, incivility, and assumptions of bad faith, Herschelkrustofsky (talk · contribs) is banned from editing Wikipedia for one year.

Permalink to motion
Rajput 17 April 2006 27 April 2006 Since his arbitration case, DPSingh (talk · contribs) has violated his ruling and been blocked, and then created a whole host of sockpuppets to violate his article ban, and just be generally disruptive and uncivil. See most recent socks at Wikipedia:Requests_for_CheckUser#Rajput_case. I recommend a general ban.

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rajput is modified to include the following remedy:

DPSingh banned

For continued violation of his article ban for edit warring and incivility using sockpuppets, DPSingh is banned from editing Wikipedia for one year.

Permalink to motion
Xed 2 21 April 2006 25 April 2006 Since his second Arbitration case, the personal attack probation against Xed (talk · contribs) imposed in the first case has lapsed, and Xed's behaviour has subsequently deteriorated. This, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Xed 2 is modified to include the following remedy:
Xed placed on indefinite personal attack parole

For continued personal attacks, Xed is placed indefinitely on personal attack parole. If, in the judgement of any sysop, Xed has breached this ruling, he may be briefly blocked should he make personal attacks, for up to a month in the case of repeat offenses.

Permalink to motion
Lightbringer 2 April 2006 10 April 2006 Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lightbringer is modified to include the following remedy:

In light of his continued and flagrant violation of his restrictions using sockpuppets, as documented by Category:Wikipedia:Suspected sockpuppets of Lightbringer and Wikipedia:Long term abuse/Lightbringer, Lightbringer is banned from Wikipedia for one year.

 Clerk note: when adding this entry, it is noted that the user referred to in this motion has been renamed to Lightbringer (usurped - blocked). This is because they were renamed to allow another established wikimedian to take their username in the global account migration process. The user with the username User:LightBringer is completely unrelated to this motion and the associated case.

Permalink to motion
Instantnood 2 8 January 2006 28 January 2006 Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Instantnood_2#Instantnood_placed_on_probation is modified to:

Instantnood (talk · contribs) is placed on Wikipedia:Probation for one year. This means that any administrator, in the exercise of judgement for reasonable cause, documented in a section of this decision, may ban them from any article or talk page which they disrupt by inappropriate editing. Instantnood must be notified on their talk page of any bans and a note must also placed on WP:AN/I.

Permalink to motions
Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Instantnood_2#Huaiwei_placed_on_probation is modified to:

Huaiwei (talk · contribs) is placed on Wikipedia:Probation for one year. This means that any administrator, in the exercise of judgement for reasonable cause, documented in a section of this decision, may ban them from any article or talk page which they disrupt by inappropriate editing. Huaiwei must be notified on their talk page of any bans and a note must also placed on WP:AN/I.

Ciz 23 December 2005 27 January 2006 Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Ciz#Prevention_from_editing_Zoophilia is modified to:
Ciz (using whatever account or IP address) is prevented indefinitely from editing Zoophilia and its closely-related articles, or any editing related to the subjects of zoophilia, bestiality, animal sexuality, or human-animal relationships in any article, including their talk pages. Whether an article or page concerns these subjects shall be determined by the enforcing administrator.
 Permalink to motions
Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Ciz#Attempts_to_edit_Zoophilia is modified to:
If Ciz (using whatever account or IP address) edits Zoophilia or its closely related articles, or makes any edit which relates to zoophilia, bestiality, animal sexuality, or human-animal relationships in any article, or their talk pages, such changes made may be reverted by any editor and any administrator may, at his/her discretion, briefly block Ciz (up to a week in the case of repeat violations). After 5 blocks the maximum block shall increase to one year.
Pigsonthewing 30 December 2005 26 January 2006 Upon review of Pigsonthewing's article edits for the month of December, I find nothing that does not appear to be edit warring. (Updated: It has been pointed out to me that he has some useful edits in the early part of December, but only one of any quality since the case against him closed on the 10th, and nothing but edit warring since the 12th. Kelly Martin (talk) 18:54, 30 December 2005 (UTC)) His probation does not appear to be going well. In general his contributions elsewhere are divisive, bordering on wikistalking of Karmafist and possibly other editors, and his continued presence on Wikipedia is clearly creating more heat than light. Accordingly, I move that Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pigsonthewing be modified include the following remedy:[reply]
Pigsonthewing (talk · contribs) (using whatever account or IP address) is banned from Wikipedia for a period of one year.
 Permalink to motion

2005

[edit]
Case name Opened Closed Outcome Relevant links
Everyking 3 28 December 2005 29 December 2005 Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Everyking 3 is reopened to modified it to include the following additional remedy:
Everyking shall not interact with, or comment in any way (directly or indirectly) about, Snowspinner, on any page in Wikipedia. Should he do so, he may be blocked by any administrator (other than Snowspinner) for a short time, up to one week; after the fifth such violation, the maximum block length shall be one year.
 Permalink to motion
Regarding The Bogdanov Affair 18 December 2005 23 December 2005 Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Regarding_The_Bogdanov_Affair#Ban_on_editing_Bogdanov_Affair is extended to include the talk page of the article. Permalink to motion
Zen-master 7 December 2005 18 December 2005 Zen-master's probation is extended to all articles.

 Clerk note: the motion did not have any formal arbitrator proposed wording, but the included text is above is what was voted for by a majority of arbs

Permalink to motion
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Motions&oldid=1256000473"