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Red (#CD5C5C) is a remedy that has since been rescinded or otherwise is wholly reliant on previous remedies that are themselves rescinded.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Rescinded: If a remedy was terminated, this will be the calendar date (in UTC) when the remedy was ended.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.
Scope: [as filed] Northamerica1000's and BrownHairedGirl's misconduct in re portals; [as adjudicated] BrownHairedGirl's one-person war against portals and attempts at weaponising Arbitration
CT?: No
Remedy name
Remedy (in modern terms)
Enacted
Enforceable?
Sup
Opp
Abs
Rcs
Temporary Injunction
BrownHairedGirl and Northamerica1000 are each topic-banned from portals on Wikipedia - both editing the Portal: namespace and discussions on portals - as long as this case is live.
--
Yes
5
0
0
0
BrownHairedGirl prohibited
In part due to her breaching the injunction, it is retained for BrownHairedGirl only. She may appeal this remedy after 6mo.
--
Yes
15
0
0
1
BrownHairedGirl interaction ban
Since this Arbitration was filed specifically to remove Northamerica1000 from portal-related discussions, BrownHairedGirl is under a one-way interaction ban from Northamerica1000. She may appeal this after 6mo.
--
Yes
11
3
0
1
BrownHairedGirl desysopped
BrownHairedGirl's administrator rights are revoked. She may only regain them through a new, successful Request for Adminship.
--
N/A
9
6
0
1
Community discussion recommended
Since ArbCom cannot force policy onto Wikipedia, the policy discussion in re portals and what to do with them is remanded to the community.
--
N/A
14
1
0
1
Motion (October 2020)
BrownHairedGirl is granted a temporary carveout for her portals topic-ban so that she can discuss/answer questions about them in her Request for Adminship. Said RfA was never transcluded and was deleted under G8 in August 2021.
RHaworth's administrator rights are revoked. He may only get them back through a new, successful Request for Adminship.
N/A
10
2
1
0
General reminder
ArbCom reminds all administrators that blocks placed by Checkusers and Suppressors - both of whom are almost certainly basing their blocks off of non-public information - should not be overturned without discussing the matter with the blocking functionary, the appropriate functionary team, or ArbCom first.
Scope: Kudpung's intimidating messages on the talk pages of users he is in dispute with
CT?: No
Remedy name
Remedy (in modern terms)
Enforceable?
Sup
Opp
Abs
Rcs
Kudpung desysopped
Kudpung's administrator rights are revoked for conduct unbecoming. He may only regain them thru a new, successful Request for Adminship.
N/A
7
2
0
4
Kudpung admonished
Kudpung is admonished for using his administrator status as a sword of Damocles.
No
8
1
0
4
General reminder
Arbitration is supposed to be the final step in the dispute resolution process. The case was filed while an AN/I thread on the matter was ongoing, with two of the four recusals being from Arbitrators who tried to de-escalate the situation. ArbCom only reluctantly accepted the case due to convincing arguments by commentors in preliminary statements, many of which were stewards or functionaries.
Scope: Persistent dispute over prescription drug pricing
CT? Close - Oct. 19, 2023 (Remedy)
Remedy name
Remedy (in modern terms)
Rescinded
Enforceable?
Sup
Opp
Abs
Rcs
Standard 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 discussions about pharmaceutical drug prices 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.)
Oct. 19, 2023
Yes
7
1
0
0
CFCF reminded
CFCF is reminded to avoid casting aspersions and similar conduct in the future.
--
No
7
0
0
0
Doc James restricted
Doc James is indefinitely banned from making article edits involving pharmaceutical drug prices.
--
Yes
8
0
0
0
QuackGuru topic banned
QuackGuru is indefinitely topic-banned from the medicine topic area.
(Case provisionally accepted with a temporary injunction declaring the Horn of Africa region (Ethiopia, Somalia, Eritrea, Djibouti, and any disputes between them and neighbouring states) a contentious topic. Closed via motion trialling the CT for 3mo and until further decision of [the] Committee; designation made permanent Nov. 29, 2021.)
(This is a shell case created specifically to streamline and clarify the multiple still-active cases related to gender and sexuality (specifically, GGTF, MND and GG). All articles on, and discussions about, gender- and sexuality-related controversies (with GamerGate explicitly included) are declared a contentious topic, and defunct references to GG's contentious topics regime are rescinded as obsolete.)
Scope: Wide-scale conduct dispute over articles related to Kurds and their traditional homeland of Kurdistan.
CT?: Close - current (Remedy)
(All direct topic-bans were modified by a motion four days later to close a loophole in them; that motion will not be listed for brevity.)
Remedy name
Remedy (in modern terms)
Enacted/Amended
Rescinded
Enforceable?
Sup
Opp
Abs
Rcs
Standard 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 articles or discussions about Kurds and Kurdistan 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.
--
--
Yes
12
0
0
0
GPinkerton banned
For incorrigibility, including breaching a topic-ban levied as a condition of lifting an indefinite block, GPinkerton is indefinitely sitebanned. They may appeal annually.
--
--
Yes
11
1
0
0
GPinkerton topic-banned
Assuming they're ever unbanned, GPinkertok is indefinitely topic-banned from articles in the Kurds/Kurdistan topic area. They may appeal annually.
Feb. 27, 2021
--
Yes
12
0
0
0
Thepharoah17 topic-banned
Thepharoah17 is indefinitely topic-banned from articles in the Kurds/Kurdistan topic area. They may appeal annually.
Supreme Deliciousness' topic-ban is suspended for 1yr. During this time, the ban may be reinstated at administrator discretion for misconduct related to Kurds/Kurdistan or by fiat. If the suspension period ends without the ban being reinstated (or all reinstatements successfully appealed), it will automatically lapse.
Scope: Interpersonal disputes, and the inability of general sanctions to kerb them, in the modern politics of Iran topic area
CT?: Close - current (Remedy)
(The remedies below refer to "the IRP area", which refers to all articles and discussions about the Iranian Revolution in 1979 and politics in Iran since that time.)
Remedy name
Remedy (in modern terms)
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 articles or discussions in the IRP 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.
Yes
13
0
0
0
RfC moderation
ArbCom authorises the use of the following as discretionary sanctions on Requests for Comment to prevent them from becoming unreadable morasses of accusations and nationalism:
Moratoriums of up to and including 1yr after the close of an RfC on a specific topic
Word and/or diff limits on all participants
Topic-bans from RfCs for editors who've disrupted previous ones
Confining users' comments to their own sections instead of threaded discussion
Yes
11
2
0
0
BarcrMac topic-banned
BarcrMac is indefinitely topic-banned from the IRP area. They may appeal this annually.
Scope: Off-wiki campaigns to edit scepticism-related articles by the group Guerrilla Skepticism on Wikipedia (hence "GSoW")
CT?: No
Remedy name
Remedy (in modern terms)
Enacted
Enforceable?
Sup
Opp
Abs
Rcs
Rp2006 warned
Rp2006 is warned against a background mentality and further incivility.
--
No
10
0
0
0
Rp2006 topic ban
Rp2006 is indefinitely topic-banned from biographies of living people associated with scepticism either as a sceptic or as a target of scepticism. They may appeal this semiannually (every 6mo).
--
Yes
7
0
2
0
A.C. Santacruz reminded
A. C. Santacruz is reminded to remain civil and collegial at all times.
ArbCom is making a suggestion to GSoW, in light of their good-faith efforts to bring new editors into Wikipedia and effectively teaching them how it works and how to edit, that the group's behaviour, while not problematic in itself, is likely going to result in a repeat of this situation if they remain strictly an off-wiki group and their training remains somewhat over-simplified. They suggest either founding a new WikiProject or becoming a taskforce under WP:WikiProject Skepticism.
--
N/A
11
0
0
0
BLP DS remedies
ArbCom declares all parties named in this discussion to be aware of the BLP contentious topic designation, and thus subject to discretionary sanctions under that from here on out.
--
N/A
11
0
0
0
Amendment (April 2024)
Rp2006 is blocked 1mo as Arbitration enforcement for breaching their topic ban. As this decision involves off-wiki information, the block must be appealed to ArbCom only.
Apr. 20, 2024
Yes
7
0
0
0
Block of Rp2006
The Arbitration Committee confirms a 1yr + indefinite block against Rp2006 levied as enforcement, converting it to an indefinite Arbitration block. As with the block two months prior, appeals must be made to ArbCom only due to off-wiki information.
MarioProtIV is indefinitely banned from closing or reopening discussions or debates anywhere but their own user talk page. They may appeal this after 1yr.
--
--
Yes
7
2
0
0
Chlod warned
Chlod is warned against winning on-wiki disputes by abusing access to off-wiki platforms.
LightandDark2000 is indefinitely topic-banned from the weather topic area. Their first appeal may be made after 6mo, with subsequent appeals being annual.
Due to two consecutive cases where coordination via off-wiki means was at the heart of the case, ArbCom puts down a list of best practices for them in hopes of preventing a repeat of this case or SCE:
The forum should be advertized on wiki, both on general pages and on relevant WikiProjects;
Instructions/links on how to join the forum are provided;
The forum has a read-only channel/thread describing the rules and expectations of the forum;
7&6=thirteen is banned from participating in XfDs. They may appeal this annually.
--
--
Yes
12
1
0
0
Johnpacklambert topic banned
Johnpacklambert is banned from participating in XfDs, tagging articles for proposed deletion (contesting existing proposed deletions is fine), and BLARs. They may appeal annually.
--
--
'Yes
13
0
0
0
Lugnuts warned
Assuming he's ever unbanned, Lugnuts is put under probation. He may be summarily blocked or topic-banned for up to 1yr from any topic he disrupts with deletion-related behaviour that isn't already covered by his topic-ban below.
--
--
Yes
11
2
0
0
Lugnuts topic banned
Assuming he's ever unbanned, Lugnuts is banned from participating in XfDs, contesting proposed deletions, or creating articles less than 500 words in length (the last superseding a community sanction on him). They may appeal this annually.
--
--
Yes
10
1
0
0
Lugnuts banned
For their unwillingness to clean up the mess they've made with literal thousands of stubs that have little chance to be expanded into full articles and their overall conduct in re deletion processes, Lugnuts is indefinitely sitebanned. They may appeal annually.
--
--
Yes
9
1
2
0
TenPoundHammer topic banned
TenPoundHammer is banned from participating in XfDs. They may appeal this annually.
--
--
Yes
11
1
1
0
Request for Comment
ArbCom is starting an RfC for the community to discuss how to handle mass Articles for Deletion nominations going forward. (A motion exists to reword the text of this remedy; it will be skipped over for brevity.)
--
Amendment: Rescind deletion RfC remedy
N/A
9
2
0
0
Motion: Rescind deletion RfC remedy
ArbCom, realising that the RfC remedy is a clusterfuck and is a bit out of their scope to begin with, rescinds it before the RfC could actually get underway. Any further discussion on deletion policy matters is remanded to the community.
Feb. 26, 2023
--
N/A
7
0
0
0
Motion: TenPoundHammer suspended topic ban for [BLAR]
TenPoundHammer is indefinitely banned from BLARring articles. This ban is suspended and will only take effect if there is a consensus to unsuspend the ban at Enforcement, if at least two Arbitrators at ARCA agree to unsuspend it and 48 hours have passed, or there is a majority vote of Arbitrators at ARCA to do so. If the ban is still suspended after 1yr (or all unsuspensions successfully appealed), it will lapse on its own terms.
(This case was effectively held in camera due to functionary tool use being implicated.)
Remedy name
Remedy (in modern terms)
Enacted
Enforceable?
Sup
Opp
Abs
Rcs
Lourdes: warned
Lourdes, who reversed the block on Athaenara without adequate discussion, is warned to be more conservative with the tools. They would later be sitebanned to enforceWifione's siteban as a self-disclosed sock.
--
No
10
1
1
0
TheresNoTime: CheckUser removed
TheresNoTime's Checkuser rights are revoked. They may only get them back by passing a fresh election.
TheresNoTime is admonished for using their Checkuser userright to go on a fishing expedition based off of little more than a wild hunch.
--
No
9
1
0
0
Actions by parties to a proceeding
ArbCom rules that, since the Committee had not seriously considered revoking TheresNoTime's administrator rights since they were not actually used here[iv], their resignation of the tools is notunder a cloud and they may regain them simply by request to a bureaucrat.
Scope: Stephen appealing a summary revocation of his administrator rights
CT?: No
Remedy name
Remedy (in modern terms)
Enforceable?
Sup
Opp
Abs
Rcs
Restoration of administrative permissions
Stephen's appeal is successful, and his administrator rights are restored. The rights were initially revoked after Checkuser found that someone logged-out under Stephen's IP address was harassing a user that Stephen had been in dispute with in the past, and that Stephen was the only registered account on the IP. Stephen's initial explanation didn't wash with ArbCom, who revoked the rights, prompting Stephen to file this case as his appeal. This case was conducted in camera at Stephen's behest, but ArbCom did note in a finding of fact that Stephen was far more forthcoming during the case than before it.
(The following remedies refer to "the AA area", which refers to the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict and the ethnopolitical, ethnic, and historical conflicts between Armenia, Azerbaijan, Turkiye, and Iran, broadly construed. All parties named in this decision are considered aware of the AA contentious topic if they weren't already.)
Remedy name
Remedy (in modern terms)
Enacted
Enforceable?
Sup
Opp
Abs
Rcs
Topic ban (Abrvagl)
Abrvagl is indefinitely topic-banned from the AA area. They may appeal this annually.
--
Yes
9
0
0
1
One Revert Restriction (Abrvagl)
Abrvagl is indefinitely under 1RR. They may appeal this annually.
--
Yes
7
1
0
1
Interaction ban (Abrvagl)/Interaction ban (ZaniGiovanni)
Abrvagl and ZaniGiovanni are under a mutual interaction ban. Either party may appeal this annually. (While passed as separate remedies phrased as one-way interaction bans, three Arbitrators made their support for both remedies conditional on the both of them passing, with one going so far as to register a conditional oppose if either failed.)
Dallavid is indefinitely topic-banned from the AA area. They may appeal this annually.
--
Yes
8
0
0
1
One Revert Restriction (Dallavid)
Dallavid is indefinitely under 1RR. They may appeal this annually.
--
Yes
8
0
0
1
Topic ban (Olympian)
Olympian is indefinitely topic-banned from the AA area. They may appeal this annually.
Spd: Olympian's topic-ban rescinded with suspension
Yes (to Oct. 18, 2025)
6
4
0
1
One Revert Restriction (Olympian)
Olympian is indefinitely under 1RR. They may appeal this annually.
--
Yes
8
0
0
1
Topic ban (ZaniGiovanni)
ZaniGiovanni is indefinitely topic-banned from the AA area. They may appeal this annually.
--
Yes
7
0
1
1
One Revert Restriction (ZaniGiovanni)
ZaniGiovanni is indefinitely under 1RR. They may appeal this annually.
--
Yes
6
0
1
1
Parties placed on probation
Golden and Grandmaster may be summarily indefinitely topic-banned from the AA area by any administrator for edit-warring. The first appeal may be made at any time and subsequent appeals are annual; all appeals must be made to ArbCom.
--
Yes (enforcement and application only)
7
0
0
1
Administrators encouraged
ArbCom encourages admins acting at AE to escalate to hard sanctions (topic bans, blocks, etc.) as soon as it becomes clear that warnings are being ignored.
--
No
6
0
2
1
Olympian's topic-ban rescinded with suspension
Olympian's topic-ban is suspended 18mo. During this time, the ban may be reinstated at administrator discretion for misconduct in the AA area; any appeals of reinstatements must be to ArbCom directly. If the suspension period ends without the ban being reinstated (or all reinstatements successfully appealed), it will automatically lapse.
Scope: Issues in the APL topic area due to a research paper (doi: 10.1080/25785648.2023.2168939) written in such a way as to doxx editors who do not agree with the authors' views
Formal request to the Wikimedia Foundation for a white paper on research best practices
ArbCom requests that the Wikimedia Foundation write a whitepaper with explanations and instructions on how to write research papers about Wikipedia and/or discussing Wikipedia editors without risking doxxing editors in the process, and then widely distribute it throughout whatever channels they have available. (Progress on the paper is tracked on Phabricator.)
N/A
11
0
0
0
Reliable sourcing restriction
WP:APL#Article sourcing expectations is expanded to also include the history of the Jews in Poland topic area. (This remedy still applies post-formalisation of reliable source consensus-required as a sanction.)
--
--
N/A
7
2
0
0
François Robere topic banned
François Robere is indefinitely topic-banned from the Polish history ca. WWII and the history of the Jews in Poland topic areas. They may appeal this annually.
My very best wishes is under indefinite one-way interaction bans from both Piotrus and Volunteer Marek. Either or both may be appealed annually.
--
Amendment (August 2024)
Yes
12
0
0
0
Volunteer Marek topic banned
Volunteer Marek is indefinitely topic-banned from the Polish history ca. WWII and the history of the Jews in Poland topic areas. They may appeal this annually.
--
--
Yes
11
0
0
0
Volunteer Marek 1 revert restriction and consensus required
Volunteer Marek is indefinitely under 1RR. Barring reverts of obvious vandalism or in his userspace, the 1RR timer resets only if there is a consensus in favour of a second revert on the talk page of the affected article. To put it more succinctly, Marek is under a revert-oriented (and less-obstructionist) variant of mandated external review.
--
--
Yes
7
0
0
0
Interaction ban (François Robere and Volunteer Marek)
François Robere and Volunteer Marek are under an indefinite mutual interaction ban. Either may appeal this sanction annually.
Piotrus - whose behaviour drastically improved from EEML but who was engaging in what looked like co-ordinated editing campaigns organised off-wiki - is warned to be careful with using off-wiki fora for on-wiki content matters.
--
--
No
9
2
0
0
Impact on the Eastern Europe topic area (I)
This expands an ArbCom motion passed in lieu of a case on this exact topic in 2022 allowing editors to file enforcement requests for APL at ARCA, now allowing such requests for the whole EE area writ large.
--
--
N/A
10
1
0
0
Impact on the Eastern Europe topic area (II)
When considering sanctions against editors in [the EE area], uninvolved administrators should consider past sanctions and the findings of fact and remedies issued in this case.
--
--
No
11
0
0
0
Amendment (August 2024)
The topic and interaction bans levied against My very best wishes are rescinded. They are still notified of, and subject to, EE sanctions.
Scottywong's administrator rights are revoked. In advance of this case's close, Scottywong deleted everything in his userspace and then blocked himself indefinitely. Assuming he is ever unblocked, he can only regain the administrator userright through a new, successful Request for Adminship.
N/A
9
0
1
2
Scottywong and ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ interaction ban
Scotttywong and ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ are - on paper - under an indefinite mutual interaction ban. In practice, this remedy is utterly meaningless. Scottywong is unlikely to appeal his self-block (likely due to the fact the other party was given the benefit of the doubt), and ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ was globally locked during the case (something acknowledged in the findings of fact) due to Checkuser finding them to be a sockpuppet of a long-term vandal.
Scope: Unresolvable conduct issues tied to a content and policy dispute over WP:SMALLCAT.
CT?: No
Remedy name
Remedy (in modern terms)
Enforceable?
Sup
Opp
Abs
Rcs
BrownHairedGirl banned
BrownHairedGirl - still under sanctions from PTL and who largely refused to engage with the Arbitration on its terms - is indefinitely sitebanned for incorrigibility. She may appeal this annually.
Yes
11
0
0
2
Laurel Lodged banned
Laurel Lodged - who was misgendering other editors, accusing them of mental illness (including BrownHairedGirl) and being openly religiously-intolerant - is indefinitely sitebanned. They may appeal this annually.
Yes
11
0
0
2
Laurel Lodged topic banned
Assuming they're ever unbanned, Laurel Lodged is indefinitely banned from any edits, discussions, or logged actions involving categories.
ArbCom notes that part of this issue is regular participants in the less-trafficked XfD venues are using consensii established at that venue in lieu of pre-existing wider consensii and so reminds editors and closers that more general consensus, should it exist for that specific matter, should at the very least be acknowledged and taken into account.
Leyo and KoA are indefinitely under a mutual interaction ban. Either party may appeal this annually.
Yes
6
3
0
0
Leyo admonished and restricted
Leyo is admonished for involved tool use and is declared to be involved in the GMO area writ large, essentially banning him from taking any administrative actions in it on pain of having his administrator rights summarily revoked.
No
8
2
0
0
KoA warned
KoA is warned against edit-warring and bad faith during dispute resolution.
