Decided: The calendar date (in UTC) when the case was decided. If the case did not reach a decision, it will be Closed instead. If the case involved an administrator "retiring", it will be "Deopped" instead.
Abbrev.: A shorthand abbreviation of the casename. See ArbCaseAbv for more details.
Type: The type of case it is:
Admin: A case centred around the conduct of one or more administrators.
Dispute: A case that examines an intractible dispute between two or more editors directly.
Editor: A case about the (non-administrative) misconduct of an editor.
Functionary: A case centred around misuse of Suppressor or Checkuser permissions.
Omnibus: A case about misconduct in a topic area writ large.
Other: Any case that doesn't fall into one of the categories above.
Remedy name: The name of the remedy (or a description of it, for earlier cases which did not have sectioned remedies).
Remedy (in modern terms): Basically my best attempt to explain, in plain English and modern understanding, what the remedy means.
If this section has a coloured background, the colour indicates its status or origin:
Yellow (#FFFF00) is a temporary injunction issued mid-case.
Blue (#00BFFF) is a post-close amendment or motion.
Red (#CD5C5C) is a remedy that has since been rescinded or otherwise is wholly reliant on previous remedies that are themselves rescinded.
Green (#32CD32) is a remedy whose wording was amended post-close, either due to an amendment/motion or due to changes in process (such as Discretionary Sanctions to Contentious Topic).
Brown (#D2691E) is suspended or in abeyence, usually as part of a period where a remedy has been appealed.
Amended/Enacted: If a remedy was added or amended post-close, this will be the calendar date (in UTC) when the remedy was modified or took effect.
Rescinded: If a remedy was terminated, this will be the calendar date (in UTC) when the remedy was ended.
Enforceable?: Indicates whether a given remedy can be invoked at WP:AE. Any remedy that predates April 2006 and was not still in force by then predates AE entirely.
Sup/Opp/Abs/Rcs: The vote totals for a remedy (Support, Oppose, Abstain, Recused).
Any case that has been courtesy-blanked or closed without action will be given a very brief description and nothing further.
Kafziel's administrator rights are revoked. They may only regain them through a new, successful Request for Adminship. In addition, due to their attempting to evade Arbitration by "retiring" Kafziel and moving to a previously-known alternative account, they cannot gain any sort of advanced permission (administrator, bureaucrat, suppressor, CheckUser) on any account that isn't Kafziel or explicitly and publicly connected to Kafziel.
N/A
10
1
1
2
Hasteur admonished
For his battlefield mentality in areas relating to Articles for Creation, Hasteur is admonished.
(The following remedies refer to "the AuEc area", which refers to all discussions and articles about the Mises Institute, the Austrian school of economics, and any entity or concept tied to either.)
Remedy name
Remedy (in modern terms)
Enacted
Rescinded
Enforceable?
Sup
Opp
Abs
Rcs
Discretionary sanctions
Provided the person being sanctioned has been alerted to the existence of this remedy, any administrator may summarily sanction a user who disrupts the AuEc area as they see fit. Any sanctions or warnings issued this way (both directly and consequentially) must be logged on the case page/centralised log and can only be appealed to WP:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement or to ArbCom directly. This supersedes the original, ineffective, community sanctions regime. (See WP:Contentious topics for more details.)
--
Motion: DS terminated
Yes
6
0
0
0
Steeletrap topic-banned
Steeletrap is indefinitely topic-banned from the AuEc area. They may appeal this after one year.
--
--
Yes
8
0
0
0
SPECIFICO topic-banned
SPECIFICO is indefinitely topic-banned from the Mises Institute topic area. This topic-ban does not extend to articles concerning [the Austrian school of economics] but not related to the Ludwig von Mises Institute but it may be expanded to cover them if need be through the contentious topic regime. They may appeal this after one year.
--
--
Yes
8
0
0
0
Carolmooredc topic-banned
Carolmooredc is indefinitely topic-banned from the AuEc area. They may appeal this after one year.
--
--
Yes
8
0
0
0
Editors urged to assist
ArbCom is urging uninvolved editors to assess the articles in dispute to make sure they're compliant with policy, particularly WP:NPOV and WP:BLP.
--
--
No
8
0
0
0
Motion: DS terminated
Discretionary sanctions is rescinded. Any sanctions still active at the time this motion passes remain so and are bound by the usual procedures for appeal.
Scope: Persistent edit-warring over aspects of historical and current gun control positions
CT?: Close - current (Remedy)
(The remedies below refer to "the GC area", which is a topic area encompassing governmental regulation of firearm ownership; the social, historical, and political context of such regulation; and the people and organizations associated with these issues, broadly construed.)
Remedy name
Remedy (in modern terms)
Enacted
Rescinded
Enforceable?
Sup
Opp
Abs
Rcs
Scope of remedies
This sets the GC area's scope; see the nota bene above this table.
--
--
N/A
11
0
0
0
Discretionary sanctions
Provided the person being sanctioned has been alerted to the existence of this remedy, any administrator may summarily sanction a user who disrupts the GC area as they see fit. Any sanctions or warnings issued this way (both directly and consequentially) must be logged on the case page/centralised log and can only be appealed to WP:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement or to ArbCom directly.
--
--
Yes
11
0
0
0
AndyTheGrump (reminded)
AndyTheGrump is reminded that being an ass and edit-warring does your position no favours, and that continuing to do either would be grounds for getting hammered down with a discretionary sanction.
--
--
No
11
0
0
0
Gaijin42 (topic-ban)
Gaijin42 is indefinitely topic-banned from the GC area.
--
Amendment: Gaijin42 topic-ban suspended
Yes
11
0
0
0
Goethean (reminded)
Goethean is criticised for needless antagonism and incivility and is also warned that continuing to do either is grounds for discretionary sanctions against him.
--
--
No
11
0
0
0
Justanonymous (topic-ban)
Justanonymous is indefinitely topic-banned from the GC area.
--
--
Yes
11
0
0
0
North8000 (site-ban and topic-ban)
North8000 is indefinitely sitebanned and indefinitely topic-banned from the GC area. The siteban may be appealed 12 months from this remedy passing or the last instance of evasion of it; the topic-ban may be appealed only after the siteban is lifted and is bound by Appeal of topic bans below.
ROG5728 is indefinitely topic-banned from the GC area.
--
--
Yes
10
0
0
0
Appeal of topic bans
All the topic-bans above may be appealed annually.
--
--
N/A
9
0
0
0
Amendment: Gaijin42 topic-ban suspended
Gaijin42's topic-ban is suspended for 1yr. During this time, the topic-ban may be reinstated at administrator discretion for disruption, either by blocking them for misconduct in the GC area or by fiat. If the suspension period ends without the topic-ban being reinstated (or all reinstatements successfully appealed), it will automatically lapse.
ArbCom declines to put a contentious topic declaration to paper at this moment, but warns that they are willing to do so without further warning or a full case if the situation does not improve.
Tarc is indefinitely banned from all administrative noticeboards and from User talk:Jimbo Wales for a history of disruption that goes well beyond the incident in this case.
Yes
6
2
1
0
Tarc restricted and warned
Tarc is indefinitely banned from reinstating edits made by banned users, with no exceptions allowed. He is also warned in no uncertain terms he will be blocked/banned if he pulls this stunt again.
Yes
6
0
3
0
Smallbones warned
Smallbones is warned for being Tarc's dance partner and for inflammatory rhetoric, with ArbCom warning any further incidents like this will be grounds for sanctions.
(Case closed via motion after being overtaken by events; the Wikimedia Foundation introduced a new staff account policy and the staffer whose actions provoked the case surrendered their advanced userrights on their personal account.)
Eric Corbett is indefinitely topic-banned from the GGTF area.
--
--
Yes
8
2
2
0
Eric Corbett prohibited
Eric Corbett may be summarily blocked at administrator discretion if he makes an edit judged to be a personal attack or otherwise denigrating/derogatory towards other editors. Breaches are to be met with blocks (capped at 72h for the first two, 1w for the third, 1mo for the fourth, and capping at 3mo and an ArbCom notification for the fifth) and logged on the case page. Any block may include full-protection/revocation of his talk page at administrator discretion.
Neotarf is indefinitely sitebanned for regularly throwing out accusations and aspersions, replying to concerns about behaviour by calling them personal attacks on his mental health, and treating Wikipedia as a battlefield. He may appeal annually.
--
--
Yes
9
1
2
0
Sitush warned
Sitush is reprimanded for writing a hit piece onCarolmooredc. Said hit piece was deleted at MfD before he could move it to article space.
--
--
Yes
10
0
0
0
Sitush and Carolmooredc interaction ban
Sitush and Carolmooredc are indefinitely under a mutual interaction ban.
--
--
Yes
11
0
0
0
SPECIFICO
ArbCom endorses and takes over a community-imposed one-way interaction ban on SPECIFICO from Carolmooredc.
Provided the person being sanctioned has been alerted to the existence of this remedy, any administrator may summarily sanction a user who disrupts pages about the Gender Gap taskforce as they see fit. Any sanctions or warnings issued this way (both directly and consequentially) must be logged on the case page/centralised log and can only be appealed to WP:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement or to ArbCom directly. (Superseded by an amendment.)
--
Motion: Interactions at GGTF (amend scope) - February 2015
Yes
11
0
0
0
Motion: Interactions at GGTF (amend scope) - February 2015
Scope of topic bans and Discretionary sanctions are both struck and replaced with versions that drastically expand the scope to pages and discussions about the Gender Gap taskforce and the gender gap on Wikipedia. (The contentious topic half of this remedy was rescinded with an amendment to MND.)
ArbCom reserves the right to levy discretionary sanctions without further warning if the behavioural situation does not improve.
--
--
N/A
8
0
0
0
Parties reminded
The parties, writ large, are told to lean on strong sources and actually discuss edits rather than blindly revert. That being said, one finding of fact explicitly notes that the topic has a relative dearth of good, independent sources.
--
--
No
10
0
0
0
Additional eyes invited
ArbCom asks that editors with no history in the topic area and no strong views about the underlying controversy review the article's content and edit to make it more neutral and better sourced where necessary.
--
--
No
7
0
2
0
Discretionary sanctions (January 2015)
The parties didn't listen, and so Landmark Worldwide is declared a contentious topic. Provided the person being sanctioned has been alerted to the existence of this remedy, any administrator may summarily sanction a user who disrupts pages about Landmark Worldwide as they see fit. Any sanctions or warnings issued this way (both directly and consequentially) must be logged on the case page/centralised log and can only be appealed to WP:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement or to ArbCom directly.
Jan. 23, 2015
Landmark Worldwide (February 2022)
Yes
9
0
0
0
Landmark Worldwide (February 2022)
The contentious topics regime is rescinded. Any sanctions levied under it remain in force and are bound by the standard appeal procedure for enforcement.
Fearofreprisal is warned against making personal attacks and casting aspersions.
No
7
1
1
0
Fearofreprisal topic ban
ArbCom endorses and expands Fearofreprisal's existing community topic-ban and expands it to cover the entire historical Jesus topic area. They may appeal this after one year.
Scope: [As presented] Dispute between pro-science and pro-alternative-medicine sides on acupuncture
CT?: Close - current (Motion)
Remedy name
Remedy (in modern terms)
Enforceable?
Sup
Opp
Abs
Rcs
Discretionary sanctions
In lieu of a full case, the Arbitration Committee resolves this matter with a motion declaring complementary medicine, alternative medicine, and homeopathy, broadly construed, a contentious topic. Provided the person being sanctioned has been alerted to the existence of this remedy, any administrator may summarily sanction a user who disrupts pages or discussions about the preceding as they see fit. Any sanctions or warnings issued this way (both directly and consequentially) must be logged on the case page/centralised log and can only be appealed to WP:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement or to ArbCom directly.
(The remedies below refer to "the GG area", which refers to articles and edits about gender- or sex-related controversies (GamerGate included) and people involved with same, broadly construed.)
Remedy name
Remedy (in modern terms)
Enacted
Rescinded
Enforceable?
Sup
Opp
Abs
Rcs
Discretionary sanctions
Provided the person being sanctioned has been alerted to the existence of this remedy, any administrator may summarily sanction a user who disrupts the GG area as they see fit. Any sanctions or warnings issued this way (both directly and consequentially) must be logged on the case page/centralised log and can only be appealed to WP:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement or to ArbCom directly.
This section serves mainly as a sanctions primer for administrators doing arbitration enforcement in the GG area, with a particular emphasis on biographical content. ArbCom also notes that BLP's contentious topic regime is an option as well for biographies that fall into the GG area.
--
--
N/A
No
12
0
0
1
Scope of standard topic ban
This establishes the topic area (for all intents and purposes, identical with the scope of the contentious topic) and appeal procedure for sanctions issued below (appeals only entertained after 1yr).
Ryulong is indefinitely sitebanned. He may appeal annually.
--
--
Yes
8
4
1
1
TaraInDC admonished
TaraInDC is admonished for their battleground conduct in the topic area.
--
--
No
11
2
0
1
Tarc topic-banned
Tarc's topic-ban from MND is effectively expanded to cover the GG area.
--
--
Yes
11
2
1
1
Tarc warned
Tarc is told in no uncertain terms by ArbCom that any further misconduct in any other topic areas will be grounds for ArbCom to put together a motion sitebanning him, likely indefinitely.
The Devil's Advocate is under 1RR/48h indefinitely, with a carveout for his own userspace.
--
--
Yes
10
1
0
1
The Devil's Advocate: Noticeboards
The Devil's Advocate is indefinitely topic-banned from administrative noticeboards, with a carveout for threads that concern situations he is directly involved in.
--
--
Yes
10
1
0
1
The Devil's Advocate warned
ArbCom issues the exact same threat to The Devil's Advocate that they did to Tarc: Fuck around in another topic area, and find out how quickly a motion to siteban them will materialise.
--
--
No
8
3
1
1
TheRedPenOfDoom admonished
TheRedPenOfDoom is admonished for their battleground conduct in the topic area.
--
--
No
10
4
0
1
Tutelary topic-banned
Tutelary is indefinitely topic-banned from the GG area due to ArbCom endorsing their community topic-ban from same.
--
--
Yes
13
0
0
1
ArmyLine, DungeonSiegeAddict510, and Xander756 topic-banned
ArmyLine, DungeonSiegeAddict510, and Xander756 are each indefinitely topic-banned from the GG area due to ArbCom endorsing their community topic-bans from same.
--
--
Yes, Yes, Yes
12
0
0
1
Titanium Dragon topic-banned
Titanium Dragon is indefinitely topic-banned from the GG area due to ArbCom endorsing their community topic-ban from same.
--
--
Yes
12
0
0
1
Loganmac topic-banned
Loganmac is indefinitely topic-banned from the GG area.
--
--
Yes
12
0
0
1
Willhesucceed topic-banned
Willhesucceed is indefinitely topic-banned from the GG area.
--
--
Yes
11
0
1
1
Review of articles urged
The underlying content disputes are remanded to the community, and particularly editors who are both knowledgeable about the topic and have no conflict of interest or pre-existing ties to parties involved in the dispute.
--
--
No
12
0
2
1
Motion regarding Talk:Gamergate controversy
The discretionary-sanction status on an extended-confirmed protection placed on Talk:Gamergate (harassment campaign) is lifted. Protection levels on the page may be adjusted as the community sees fit.
Oct. 22, 2016
--
N/A
7
0
1
0
Motion: NorthBySouthBaranof (February 2017)
NorthBySouthBaranof's topic-ban is rescinded. They are still on notice of, and thus subject to, GG discretionary sanctions.
Scope: Wifione's (then-)recently-discovered conflict of interest editing and use of tools to further same
CT?: No
Remedy name
Remedy (in modern terms)
Enforceable?
Sup
Opp
Abs
Rcs
Wifione restricted
Assuming he is ever unbanned under any identity, Wifione is indefinitely topic-banned from the post-1915 Indian organisations topic area. He must also edit from the Wifione account and no other.
Scope: Esoglou and Roscelese's long-term animosity over articles involving Christian denominations' views on sexuality
CT?: No
Remedy name
Remedy (in modern terms)
Amended/Enacted
Enforceable?
Sup
Opp
Abs
Rcs
Esoglou site banned
For a laundry list of problems (including but not limited to good-and-bad handing, gratuitous personal attacks, and edit warring) Esoglou is indefinitely sitebanned. They may appeal annually.
--
Yes
10
0
0
0
Roscelese restricted
Roscelese is indefinitely under 1RR and is required to explain any reverts she makes (excepting obvious vandalism/concerning content) on the talk page of the affected article within 24 hours. To help encourage this, she is also banned from using the rollback function (or its equivalent on semi-automated toolsets such as AWB or Huggle) except on obvious vandalism/concerning content. Finally, she may be summarily blocked if she makes an edit judged to be aspersions-casting or personalising a dispute she's involved in. Each of these restrictions may be appealed annually. (The original version had fairly redundant wording, and only applied the vandalism/BLP exceptions to the 1RR and justification requirement.)
Motion: Roscelese's restrictions modified
Yes
8
2
0
0
Padresfan94 site banned
For being an account clearly created for the sole purpose of picking fights and pushing a pro-Catholic POV, Padresfan94 is indefinitely sitebanned. They may appeal annually.
--
Yes
10
0
0
0
Dominus Vobisdu restricted
Dominus Vobisdu is indefinitely under 1RR and is required to explain any reverts he makes (excepting obvious vandalism/concerning content) on the talk page of the affected article within 24 hours. Either/both of the 1RR and justification requirement may be appealed annually.
--
Yes
9
1
0
0
Dominus Vobisdu admonished
Dominus Vobisdu is admonished for his edit-warring and told to talk it out with other parties rather than blindly revert.
--
No
9
1
0
0
Motion: Roscelese's restrictions modified
This motion tightens the wording of Roscelese restricted to not sound so repetitive and to apply the exceptions to the rollback as well.
Scope: Collect's conduct overall. Split off from AP2.
CT?: No
Remedy name
Remedy (in modern terms)
Enforceable?
Sup
Opp
Abs
Rcs
Collect topic-banned (option 2)
Collect is indefinitely topic-banned from the politics of the United States and American political figures topic areas. They may appeal after 18 months.
OccultZone is indefinitely sitebanned. They may appeal this after one year, and thereafter semiannually (every 6mo).
--
April 2017
Yes
8
0
0
0
OccultZone: topic-banned
Assuming their siteban is ever lifted, OccultZone is indefinitely topic-banned from the crime and sexual assault topic areas where they intersect with the IP topic area.
--
--
Yes
9
2
0
0
OccultZone: One account restriction
OccultZone must use that account to edit and no other. He must receive prior consent from ArbCom if he wishes to change username.
--
--
Yes
12
0
0
0
April 2017
OccultZone's siteban is rescinded. In its place, OccultZone is indefinitely topic-banned from editing WP:Sockpuppet investigations and its subpages (he may still file new SPIs by proxy via functionaries, an admin, or a sockpuppet investigations clerk), indefinitely topic-banned from the South Asia topic area, under indefinite 1RR, and indefinitely banned from raising an issue at more than one venue (commenting on the issue at multiple venues, i.e. the thread was moved or raised by somebody else, is permitted), with a carveout for Arbitration or clarification/amendment requests. All other remedies remain in effect.
Scope: The persistently toxic atmosphere in the politics of the United States topic area
CT?: Close - present (Remedy)
Remedy name
Remedy (in modern terms)
Enacted
Rescinded
Enforceable?
Sup
Opp
Abs
Rcs
Discretionary sanctions
Per the general directive in the previous case (which becomes superseded), ArbCom declares the politics of the United States from 1932 onwards a contentious topic. Provided the person being sanctioned has been alerted to the existence of this remedy, any administrator may summarily sanction a user who disrupts articles or discussions about the post-1932 politics of the United States as they see fit. Any sanctions or warnings issued this way (both directly and consequentially) must be logged on the case page/centralised log and can only be appealed to WP:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement or to ArbCom directly.
--
Amendment: American politics 2 (1992 cutoff)
Yes
11
0
0
0
Ubikwit: Topic Ban (III)
Ubikwit is indefinitely topic-banned from the post-1932 politics of the United States topic area. They may appeal this after 18mo.
--
--
Yes
12
0
0
0
MONGO: Admonished
MONGO is admonished for adding to the hostility in the topic area.[link added]
--
--
No
9
3
0
0
Amendment: American politics 2 (1992 cutoff)
The contentious topic regime has its cutoff date moved from 1932 to 1992 due to there being virtually no issues with articles about topics predating 1992, with most of the issues taking place on articles about current politics. In essence, this rescinds the old post-1932 regime and replaces it with a post-1992 one, with no other change to the CTOP declaration.
Jan. 19, 2021
--
Yes
8
1
2
0
Technical 13
Closed: June 26, 2015
(Case closed by motion due in part to being overtaken by events. Technical 13requested and received an indefinite block independent of the case; the motion confirms the block as an indefinite Arbitration siteban and adds a one-account restriction.)
Scope: Lightbreather's aggressive behaviour and the harassment surrounding her
CT?: No[ii]
Remedy name
Remedy (in modern terms)
Enacted
Rescinded
Enforceable?
Sup
Opp
Abs
Rcs
Temporary injunction
Lightbreather and Scalhotrod are under a mutual interaction ban, with no exceptions allowed from either side. Any accusations or evidence of off-wiki misconduct must be sent by email to ArbCom directly. Breaches are to be met with blocks (capped at 72h) and, if necessary, immediate removal/redaction of the violating edit.
--
--
Yes
8
0
0
0
Lightbreather: Site-ban
Lightbreather is sitebanned. She may appeal after 1yr.
--
Motion (September 2022)
Yes
9
4
0
0
Lightbreather: Gun control topic-ban
Lightbreather is indefinitely topic-banned from the GC area.
--
--
Yes
12
0
0
0
Lightbreather: Restricted to one account
Lightbreather must edit from that account and no other, and cannot edit while logged-out.
--
--
Yes
11
2
0
0
Lightbreather: 1RR
Lightbreather is indefinitely under 1RR, with a carveout for her own userspace.
--
--
Yes
13
0
0
0
Lightbreather: Reverse topic ban[sic]
Lightbreather is indefinitely banned from all namespaces other than article and article talk, with carveouts for her own userspace and to defend herself in dispute resolution. If she needs to initiate dispute resolution, she may contact ArbCom to file a request by proxy.
--
--
Yes
13
0
0
0
Lightbreather: Interaction bans taken over (alternate)
ArbCom takes over all community-levied interaction bans where Lightbreather is a party. Enforcement may be done as normal, but any appeals of sanctions must be done by email to ArbCom. The affected topic bans are:
Since ArbCom cannot force policy onto Wikipedia, the policy discussion in re dealing with serious harassment is remanded to the community. Most of the case's findings of fact revolve around harassment both by and of Lightbreather.
--
--
N/A
13
0
0
0
Community urged
ArbCom notes that the WMF was, at this time, working on amending its Trust & Safety policies and encourages editors who have something productive to add to provide whatever information and assistance they can.
--
--
N/A
13
0
0
0
Motion (January 2019)
The mutual interaction ban between Hell in a Bucket and Lightbreather is rescinded. All other Lightbringer-involved interaction bans remain in place.
Jan. 09, 2019
--
N/A
10
0
0
0
Motion (September 2022)
Lightbreather's siteban is suspended for one year (all other sanctions remain in place). During this period, any administrator can block her for violations of Wikipedia policy, for obstinance, or for continuing her previous harassment campaigns; any blocks longer than 3mo must be reviewed by ArbCom to see if there is cause to reinstate the siteban. If the suspension period ends without ArbCom review, the siteban will be rescinded.
Scope: (As filed) Kww and The Rambling Man's edit-warring over actor accolades; (as adjudicated) Kww's abuse of administrator and filter-manager tools
CT?: No
Remedy name
Remedy (in modern terms)
Enforceable?
Sup
Opp
Abs
Rcs
Kww desysopped
Kww's administrator rights are revoked. He may only get them back via a new, successful Request for Adminship.
N/A
10
0
1
0
Kww's edit filter permissions revoked
Kww's edit filter manager rights are revoked. He can only regain them after going through a new, successful, Request for Adminship. (This remedy has a clause in the event the desysop did not pass, indefinitely revoking them until this remedy is successfully appealed.)
N/A
11
0
0
0
Community encouraged
Since ArbCom cannot force policy on Wikipedia, the policy discussion on use of edit filters is remanded to the community.
Scope: Wheel-warring over a GGTF enforcement block levied against Eric Corbett
CT?: No
Remedy name
Remedy (in modern terms)
Enforceable?
Sup
Opp
Abs
Rcs
Opening motion and temporary injunction
ArbCom opens this case via motion and lays down several ground rules:
The case is officially named "Arbitration enforcement";
Nobody may take or request admin action against anyone who has commented on the matter at AN(/I), AE, or RfArb;
Any breaches of (2) must be reported to ArbCom directly via email.
No (ArbCom explicitly retains jurisdiction)
9
0
0
0
Motion rescinding temporary injunction and granting an amnesty
As it's now crystal clear that all actions taken in this matter were done in good faith and the problem arises from policy in re Arbitration enforcement itself, ArbCom strikes bullets 2 and 3 of the pre-case motion and declares an amnesty for both Eric Corbett and all administrators that participated in the wheel-war over him.
N/A
6
0
3
0
Drafters delegated
Sitting arbitrators AGK and Salvio giuliano - the case's drafters - are tasked with amending the contentious topics policy and the text on Enforcement to bring them in line with the case's principles.
N/A
10
0
0
0
Neelix
Closed: Nov. 13, 2015
(Case closed with no action due to being overtaken by events. Neelix willingly surrendered his administrator rights and the community banned him from creating redirects. The community also agreed to create a temporary criterion for speedy deletion to get rid of any redirects he's already made.)
The existing general sanctions regime for the e-cigarette topic area is rescinded as completely useless, having only been used once in seven months. In its place, e-cigarettes are declared a contentious topic. Provided the person being sanctioned has been alerted to the existence of this remedy, any administrator may summarily sanction a user who disrupts articles or discussions about e-cigarettes and vaping as they see fit. Any sanctions or warnings issued this way (both directly and consequentially) must be logged on the case page/centralised log and can only be appealed to WP:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement or to ArbCom directly.
Oct. 19, 2023
Yes
8
0
0
0
DS Extended: SPAs
Single-purpose accounts in the e-cigarettes/vaping topic area may be summarily blocked as a discretionary sanction without alerting them if they are disruptive, at administrator discretion. (This remedy is dependent on the CT designation and thus, while never formally rescinded, is defunct.)
See text
Yes
5
3
0
0
DS: Administrators encouraged
This section serves mainly as a primer for administrators doing Arbitration enforcement in the e-cigarette/vaping topic area.
--
No
8
0
0
0
QuackGuru Warned[sic]
QuackGuru is warned that continuing to engage in a pattern of disruption to Wikipedia will result in further sanctions. Given that there are multiple findings of fact about QuackGuru's behaviour and recidivism, one has to wonder if ArbCom vacationed to the Bay of Bengal during the case.
--
No
8
0
0
0
CFCF: 1RR Restriction
CFCF is under indefinite 1RR/72h in the e-cigarette/vaping topic area.
--
Yes
8
0
0
0
CFCF Warned[sic]
CFCF is told to start talking with editors they are in dispute with, and edit warring blocks do not require Arbitration remedies to be levied.
Scope: Review of the PIA contentious topics regime
CT?: No[iii]
(All remedies were explicitly superseded by the remedies in PIA4. All motions amending the remedies will be omitted for brevity, with the text provided describing how the remedies worked at the time PIA4 was closed.)'
Remedy name
Remedy (in modern terms)
Enforceable?
Sup
Opp
Abs
Rcs
General Prohibition
All pages in the PIA area are put under a 500/30 restriction indefinitely. The only carveout allowed is talk pages of affected articles. Creation of new articles in the topic area is likewise restricted to extended-confirmed editors, but deletion of pages created in defiance of this is not mandated.
Yes
7
3
0
0
Sanctions available
This is essentially a primer for administrators seeking to levy discretionary sanctions in the PIA area, and notes that BLP is an option as well for content regarding living people, even if the person would fall into the PIA area.
No
11
0
0
0
^This amendment was also posted to this case as it pertains to both cases; this case will omit the amendment.