Johnpacklambert (talk ·contribs) is banned from taking the following actions: (1) participating in deletion discussions, broadly construed, except forcategories for discussion; (2)proposing an article for deletion ("PRODing"), but not contesting a proposed deletion ("de-PRODing"); and (3) turning an article into a redirect. This sanction supersedes hisMarch 2017 community topic ban. This ban may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.

Should Johnpacklambert fail to adhere to anynormal editorial process or expectations in the topic area, any uninvolved administrator may remove the categories for discussion exception (therefore reinstating the topic ban for all deletion discussions) as anarbitration enforcement action. Appeal of such a reinstatement would follow the normalarbitration enforcement appeals process. After twelve months from the date this motion is enacted, if the topic ban has not been reinstated or any reinstatements have been successfully appealed, this provision allowing for reinstatement by an uninvolved administrator will automatically lapse.

Where an arbitrator does not vote on a proposal that requires anabsolute majority, the process below may be followed.

• For votes at a Proposed Decision page, or on a motion atWikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case,Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions orWikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment:
  • At any time after seven days from the proposed decision or motion being posted, any arbitrator (but often one of the drafting arbitrators, or a coordinating arbitrator) may initiate the 'abstention for non-votes' procedure. To initiate this, they will a) post a link to this subsection, along with a ping for each arbitrator potentially affected, to the 'Implementation notes' section of the proposed decision page (or equivalent section for a motion); and b) an email to the arbcom-en mailing list detailing the same.
  • After 72 hours, any arbitrator votes still outstanding will be automatically considered as an abstention for the purposes of that individual proposal.
  • Should an arbitrator who had abstentions automatically registered for proposal(s) under this clause subsequently vote on a proposal before it is closed, that vote will override and replace the automatic abstention.

A vote will not be closed as successful if thetotal number of arbitrators voting on it is less than anabsolute majority of the Committee.

The application of this clause is not automatic, and arbitrators should use their best judgement when deciding whether or not to apply it. Factors that should be considered include levels of communication, statements around voting in the immediate future, as well as the nature and count of the votes.

Note that this process cannot be applied tothe process that governs the removal of an arbitrator.

Wikipedia:Contentious topics#Renewal of page restrictions andWikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures#Renewal of page restrictions are modified as follows:

Wikipedia:Contentious topics#Logging andWikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures#Logging 2 are modified as follows:

Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures#Logging is modified as follows:

Further, WMrapids is subject to a one-account restriction. This restriction may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this motion, and every twelve months thereafter.

(d) The rationale for the requested amendment, comprising no more than1000500 words.

• 1) For repeated and egregious breaches of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines onpaid-contribution disclosures andconflicts of interest,Tinucherian (talk ·contribs) is desysopped. Tinucherian may regain the administrative tools at any time via a successful request for adminship.
• 2d)Tinucherian (talk ·contribs) is admonished for repeatedly editing in a manner inconsistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines onpaid-contribution disclosures andconflicts of interest. The question of whether administrative action is needed for violation ofWP:COI andWP:UPE is left to normal community processes.

Coordinating arbitrators

The Arbitration Committee shall, from time to time, designate one or more arbitrators to serve as the Committee's coordinating arbitrators.

Coordinating arbitrators shall be responsible for assisting the Committee in the routine administration and organization of its mailing list and non-public work in a similar manner as the existingarbitration clerks assist in the administration of the Committee's on-wiki work.

The specific responsibilities of coordinating arbitrators shall include:

• Acknowledging the receipt of correspondence and assigning tracking identifiers to pending requests and other matters;
• Tracking the status of pending matters and providing regular updates and reminders on the status of the Committee's off-wiki work to arbitrators;
• Reminding members of the Committee to vote or otherwise take action in pending matters;
• Organizing related correspondence into case files; and
• Performing similar routine administrative and clerical functions.

A coordinating arbitrator may, but is not required to, state an intention to abstain on some or all matters before the Committee without being listed as an "inactive" arbitrator.

• When imposing acontentious topic restriction under theArab-Israeli conflict contentious topic, an uninvolved administrator may require that appeals be heard only by the Arbitration Committee. In such cases, the committee will hear appeals at ARCA according to thecommunity review standard. A rough consensus of arbitrators will be required to overturn or amend the sanction.
• Uninvolved administrators may impose word limits on all participants in a discussion, or on individual editors across all discussions, within the area of conflict. These word limits are designated as part of thestandard set of restrictions within theArab-Israeli conflict contentious topic. These restrictions must be logged and may be appealed in the same way as all contentious topic restrictions.
• All participants in formal discussions (RfCs, RMs, etc) within the area of conflict are urged to keep their comments concise, and are limited to 1,000 words per discussion. This motion willsunset two years from the date of its passage.
• Following a request atWP:ARCA, the Arbitration Committee directs its clerks to open a case to examine the interaction of specific editors in theWP:PIA topic area. Subject to amendment by the drafting arbitrators, the following rules will govern the case:
  • The case title will bePalestine-Israel articles 5.
  • The initial parties will be:
    • BilledMammal (talk ·contribs)
    • Iskandar323 (talk ·contribs)
    • Levivich (talk ·contribs)
    • Nableezy (talk ·contribs)
    • PeleYoetz (talk ·contribs)
    • Selfstudier (talk ·contribs)
    • האופה (talk ·contribs)
  • Aoidh will be the initial drafter
  • The case will progress at the usual time table, unless additional parties are added or the complexity of the case warrants additional time for drafting a proposed decision, 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 toArbcom-enwikimedia.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.

• Remedies 5.1 and 5.2 ofWorld War II and the history of Jews in Poland (the topic and interaction bans onMy very best wishes, respectively) are repealed.
• My very best wishes'topic ban from World War II in Eastern Europe and the history of Jews in Eastern Europe, imposed undertheEastern Europe contentious topic procedures, is repealed.

• The case title will beHistorical elections.
• The initial parties will be:
  • Anonymousioss (talk ·contribs)
  • BigCapt45 (talk ·contribs)
  • CroatiaElects (talk ·contribs)
  • DemocraticLuntz (talk ·contribs)
  • Mcleanm302 (talk ·contribs)
  • Number 57 (talk ·contribs)
  • Talleyrand6 (talk ·contribs)
  • VosleCap (talk ·contribs)
• 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 toArbcom-enwikimedia.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.

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 anOversight 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 aCheckUser 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.

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 toarbcom-enwikimedia.org or at theclerks' 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 successfulrequest for adminship.

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)

1. Since at least October 2023, there has been an ongoing effort by one or more banned editors to canvass discussions within theIsrael-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:
   • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Genocide against Palestinians
   • Talk:Allegations of war crimes against Israel#Requested move 11 October 2023
   • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nakba denial
   • Talk:Israel#Request for Comment on apartheid charges
   • Talk:United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine#Unexplained removal
   • Talk:Ahed Tamimi#Instagram account suspended following call to butcher civilians
   • Talk:From the river to the sea#Lead dominant View
   • Talk:From the river to the sea#For Clarity on Removal of Kelley Source
   • Talk:Gaza Strip#"Oppressive one-party state"
   • Template talk:Genocide navbox#Correction of date range and citation in need of correction
   • Talk:Human shields in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict#Merge proposal
   • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Glorification of martyrdom in Palestinian society
   • Talk:Israel#RFC on human rights language in lead
   • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beit Rima massacre
   • Talk:2023 Israel–Hamas war#RfC on sexual violence in lead section

   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 thatDovidroth (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 thatDovidroth (talk ·contribs) most likely made proxy edits for a banned editor. As a result, they are indefinitelytopic banned from making edits related tothe 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 thatEytanMelech (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 thatEytanMelech (talk ·contribs) most likely made proxy edits for a banned editor. As a result, they are indefinitelytopic banned from making edits related tothe 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 thatHomerethegreat (talk ·contribs) most likely participated in discussions due to canvassing and made proxy edits for a banned editor. As a result, they are indefinitelytopic banned from making edits related tothe Arab-Israeli conflict,broadly construed. This ban may be appealed immediately after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.

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 asthis 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 tothe Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard. GiantSnowman mayappeal these restrictions directly to the Arbitration Committee at any time.

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 theReliable 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 ofAntisemitism 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.

The Committee may apply the "extended confirmed restriction" to specified topic areas. When such a restriction is in effect in a topic area, onlyextended-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:" namespaceonly topost constructive comments andmakeedit 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 maynot 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 throughextended 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.

• 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 thatEastern Europe and theBalkans, broadly construed, continues to be a contentious topic.

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

Arequest 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.

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 atWP:AC/P andWP: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 the2021-22 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.

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.

The Arbitration Committee directs its clerks to open a case to examine the reversal and reinstatement ofAthaenara (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 beReversal and reinstatement of Athaenara's block. The initial parties will beLourdes (talk ·contribs) andTheresNoTime (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 toarbcom-enwikimedia.org.

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.

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

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

1. Remedy 5 of theNeuro-linguistic programming case ("Mentorship") is rescinded.
2. Remedy 2.1 of theOccupation of Latvia case ("Article probation") is rescinded.
3. Remedy 2 of theShiloh case ("Article-related Probation") is rescinded.
4. Remedy 14.3 of theObama articles case ("Articles semi-protected") is rescinded.
5. The Arbitration Committee clarifies that the article probation referenced inFinding of Fact 3 of theObama articles case ("Articles placed on probation") and subject to review inRemedy 1.1 of theObama articles case ("Article probation review") is no longer in effect pursuant to aMarch 2015 community discussion, but related articles may be covered by remedies in theAmerican 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 thestandard procedure for arbitration enforcement appeals.

1. The request for an arbitration case to resolve the issue of a potential conflict of interest asoriginally 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 thatstandard discretionary sanctions andspecial 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 thearbitration 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 atWP: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 atARCA, at which point the committee may resolve the request by motion or open a case to examine the issue.^{[removed byWP: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 casein camera.
8. Editors are reminded that Wikipedia discussions are aboutforming a consensus, not convincingeveryone to agree. Discussion is an important part of how consensus is reached on Wikipedia and everyone should have the opportunity to express their views, withinreasonable limits. It may be taken asdisruptive to attemptstalling out the consensus-building process by repeatedly stating an opinion or withrepeated 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 thearbitration policy's provisions on admissibility of evidence.

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

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, onlyextended-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 maynot 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 throughextended 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 theAntisemitism in Poland case ("500/30 restriction") is retitled "Extended confirmed restriction" and amended to read as follows:

Extended confirmed restriction

7) Theextended 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 theEastern Europe arbitration case remain in effect for this topic area.

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

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

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.

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 ofWikipedia: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.

Clause (i) ofRemedy 1.1 of theGamerGate case ("Discretionary sanctions") is rescinded. Sanctions previously issued in accordance with Remedy 1.1 of theGamerGate case will from this time on be consideredGender and sexuality sanctions. This motion does not invalidate any action previously taken under theGamerGate 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 theManning naming dispute case ("Discretionary sanctions applicable"), as amended, is rescinded.
4. The final clause of theFebruary 2019Manning naming dispute motion (adding an amendment to theInteractions 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 toGamerGate 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 theGamerGate case, the newGender and sexuality case, theManning naming dispute case, and theInteractions at GGTF case.

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

• • 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.

• • Standard discretionary sanctions as authorized by theEastern Europe arbitration case remain in effect for this topic area.

Icewhiz (talk ·contribs) is indefinitely banned frominteracting with or commenting onVolunteer Marek (talk ·contribs) anywhere on Wikipedia (subject to theordinary exceptions).

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.

• Trends in disruptive editing of related pages, but not the specific conduct of any editor.
• Difficulties in Wikipedia administrative processes, particularlyarbitration 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.

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.

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

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.

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 theGeneral Prohibition are exempt from the provisions of this motion. Also, thenormal 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.

• 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.

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 administratorwho 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.

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 theGeneral Prohibition are exempt from the provisions of this motion. Also, thenormal exemptions apply. Editors who violate this restriction may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offense.

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

Editors cautioned

Editors are cautioned againstedit 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.

Philip Cross (talk ·contribs) is indefinitelytopic banned fromedits 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 thecommunity sanction applied in May 2018.

TheAwareness section of thediscretionary sanctions procedure is modified to the following:

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 theGeneral Prohibition are exempt from the provisions of this motion. Also, thenormal exemptions apply. Editors who violate this restriction may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offense.

• one account restriction
• topic ban from discussions on geographic naming conventions
• prohibition onmoving 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).

Thestandard 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 aRequest 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.

(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.

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

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 theGeneral Prohibition are exempt fromthe revert limitthe provisions of this motion. Also, thenormal exemptions apply. Editors who violate this restriction may be blockedwithout warning by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offense.

• The "Expectations of administrators" section
• The "Dismissing an enforcement request" section

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

• OccultZone's topic ban fromremedy 2 and one account restriction fromremedy 3 in the "OccultZone and others" case remain in effect.
• OccultZone is indefinitely topic banned from filing, commenting in or discussingsockpuppet investigations. If OccultZone has a reasonable suspicion that a user may be engaging in sockpuppetry, they should raise the issue with thefunctionaries, 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 aboutSouth Asian topics, broadly construed.
• OccultZone is indefinitely subject to a1RR 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.

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 theGeneral Prohibition are exempt from the revert limit. Also, thenormal exemptions apply. Editors who violate this restriction may be blocked without warning by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offense.

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 ofextended 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 beextended-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.

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 theAmerican politics discretionary sanctions introduced in the 2015American politics 2 case.
• His 2012 restriction fromhomophobia is adopted by the committee as a topic ban.
• He is restricted to one account.

These restrictions are to be enforced under the standardenforcement andappeals and modifications provisions and may be appealed to the committee after six months.

• 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 viaWP:ARCA.
• Thetwo-way interaction ban between Ferahgo andMathsci (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log) remains in force.

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 theGamergate controversy article).

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.

• Remedy 2.1 - General editor probation is rescinded.
• Remedy 2.3 - Article creation restriction is rescinded
• Thetopic ban imposed bySeraphimblade is rescinded. For clarity, this means that Doncram is permitted to edit existing articles but not create new articles that are related to the National Register of Historic Places, broadly construed.
• The following remedy is added to the case:Doncram (talk ·contribs) is indefinitely restricted from creating new pages, except for redirects, in article space which are related to theNational Register of Historic Places, broadly construed.

• EditingLamia (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.

• Thetwo-way interaction bans withThe Devil's Advocate (talk ·contribs) andCla68 (talk ·contribs) enacted in aSeptember 2013 amendment to theRace and intelligence case.
• Atwo-way interaction ban withFerahgo the Assassin (talk ·contribs) is enacted in accordance with theRace and intelligence casereview.

This motion is to be enforced under theenforcement clauses of theRace and intelligence case.

1. Remedy 1 of theLapsed Pacifist 2 case is rescinded;
2. Remedy 2 of theMantanmoreland case is rescinded;
3. Remedy 1 of theWaterboarding case is rescinded;
4. Remedy 1 of theVivaldi 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.

Supporting: NativeForeigner, Roger Davies, Euryalus, DeltaQuad

Opposing: None

Abstaining: None

1. Remedy 2 of theBluemarine case is rescinded. The discretionary sanctions authorised for theAmerican Politics 2 case and theEditing of Biographies of Living Persons case continue to apply in this topic area;
2. Remedy 2.1 of theElection case is rescinded. The discretionary sanctions authorised for theAmerican Politics 2 case continue to apply in this topic area;
3. Remedies 4 and 5 of theFree Republic case are rescinded. The discretionary sanctions authorised for theAmerican Politics 2 case continue to apply in this topic area;
4. Remedy 1 of theNeuro-linguistic programming case is rescinded. The discretionary sanctions authorised for thePseudoscience case continue to apply in this topic area;
5. Remedy 1.1 of theTea Party Movement case is rescinded. The discretionary sanctions authorised for theAmerican 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.

1. Remedy 3 of theLiancourt Rocks case is rescinded.
2. In its place,Standard Discretionary sanctions are authorised with immediate effect for all pages relating to theLiancourt 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.

II) For a six-month periodGerda 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.

• Callanecc (talk ·contribs ·blocks ·protections ·deletions ·page moves ·rights ·RfA) asCheckuser andOversighter to continue after his term on theAudit Subcommittee expires
• Mike V (talk ·contribs ·blocks ·protections ·deletions ·page moves ·rights ·RfA) as Checkuser and Oversighter.

• Bbb23 (talk ·contribs ·blocks ·protections ·deletions ·page moves ·rights ·RfA) as a Checkuser.

• The following users were appointed as Oversighters:
• GB fan (talk ·contribs ·blocks ·protections ·deletions ·page moves ·rights ·RfA)
• HJ Mitchell (talk ·contribs ·blocks ·protections ·deletions ·page moves ·rights ·RfA)
• Keilana (talk ·contribs ·blocks ·protections ·deletions ·page moves ·rights ·RfA)
• Kelapstick (talk ·contribs ·blocks ·protections ·deletions ·page moves ·rights ·RfA)
• Lankiveil (talk ·contribs ·blocks ·protections ·deletions ·page moves ·rights ·RfA)
• Ronhjones (talk ·contribs ·blocks ·protections ·deletions ·page moves ·rights ·RfA)

1. sending an insulting e-mail to an editor he had just sanctioned,
2. edit warring on an article and thenprotecting 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 asuccessful request for adminship.

1. Are the sanctions ofPigsonthewing 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 beingUser: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.

1. Are the sanctions ofPigsonthewing 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 beingUser: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.

A central log ("log") of all sanctions placed under thediscretionary 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 thestandard 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 theauthorising 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."

Enforcement action taken pursuant to the foregoing may be appealed in the ordinary way to aconsensus 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.

1. Remedy 14 of theAyn Rand case is rescinded;
2. Remedy 5 of theMonty Hall problem case is rescinded;
3. Remedy 1 of theLongevity case is rescinded;
4. The discretionary sanctions authorised explicitly for theCold fusion 2 and theHomeopathy cases are rescinded. The discretionary sanctions authorised for thePseudoscience and"Fringe science" cases continue to apply. Additionally, Remedy 14 of thePseudoscience case is amended by replacing the word "articles" with the word "pages" forconsistency;
5. Remedy 5 of theTree shaping case is rescinded;
6. Remedy 10 of theGibraltar 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 theclarifications 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 thediscretionary sanctions main page.

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

• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles#Standard discretionary sanctions
• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eastern Europe#Standard discretionary sanctions
• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Longevity#Discretionary sanctions
• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/September 11 conspiracy theories#Standard discretionary sanctions
• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Shakespeare authorship question#Discretionary sanctions
• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Transcendental Meditation movement#Standard discretionary sanctions
• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Sexology#Discretionary sanctions
• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles#Standard discretionary sanctions

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

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

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

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

is vacated and replaced with the following:

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 thearbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at theadministrators’ noticeboard ("AN"); and
3. submit a request for amendment at"ARCA". If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email throughSpecial:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee (or, if email access is revoked, toarbcom-llists.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.

These housekeeping provisions were:

1. Remedy 8A ofDisputed islands in East Asia is rescinded as it is no longer required.
2. Motion 2 of theTrusilver motions are rescinded; they are superseded by thestandard appeals and modification provision below.
3. The substantive content atWikipedia: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 theArbitration Enforcement sanction handling case are rescinded, and each replaced with a link to the new remedy above.
5. Provisions relating tomandated external review authorised inMotion aboutThe 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 usersHumunculus,Ohconfucius, andCollipon are vacated.
6. Provisions for special enforcement ofBiographies of living people (BLP) inFootnoted Quotes are rescinded and replaced by:

   "StandardWikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions are authorised for the area of conflict, namely any edit in anyarticle 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"

   Theadministrator instructions page is deprecated and replaced with a redirect to the mainDiscretionary sanctions page.
7. The standard enforcement provision adoptedby 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.

See the motion page for this updated procedure.

The following clarification now applies

The following sanction is vacated with immediate effect.

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

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 2

• By way of clarification, theformal warning issued byKevin Gorman was out of process and therefore has no effect. The provisions ofWP:BLPBAN will be reviewed by the Arbitration Committee and where necessary updated.

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.

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

• Commenting on, or interacting with,The Devil's Advocate (talk ·contribs)
• Commenting on, or interacting with,Cla68 (talk ·contribs)
• Participating in any discussion concerning the conduct ofSightWatcher (talk ·contribs).

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

2) MarshalN20 and Lecen are indefinitely prohibited frominteracting with, or commenting on, each other anywhere on Wikipedia (subject to theordinary 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 toarbitration enforcement, and then to the Arbitration Committee.

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 toSyrian 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 toSyrian 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 atTalk:Syrian civil war/Log.

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.

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.

1. No arbitrator has voted to accept the case; or
2. There arefour 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".

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

1) On 27 December 2012, the Arbitration Committeeasked the community to hold a discussion concerning theJerusalem article. The committee also resolved to appoint three uninvolved, experienced editors to decide the result of thatrequest 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 appointMr. 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.

(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.

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 atArbitration Enforcement.

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

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 underPseudoscience, rather than under previous decisions concerning sub-topics of pseudoscience, but previous or existing sanctions or enforcement actions are not affected by this motion.

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.

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.

Thisremedy 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 theScientology topic broadly construed. All warnings and sanctions shall be logged in theappropriate section of the main case page.

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.

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.

Discretionary Sanctions

The topic is placed underdiscretionary sanctions. Any uninvolved administrator may levy restrictions as anarbitration 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.

• Remedy 1.1 ofPalestine-Israel articles (All Arab-Israeli conflict-related articles, broadly interpreted)
• Armenia-Azerbaijan 2 as amended. (Topics related to Armenia-Azerbaijan and related ethnic conflicts, broadly interpreted)
• Remedy 1 ofMacedonia (topics related to the Balkans, broadly interpreted)
• Remedy 1.2 ofClimate change (The Climate change topic, broadly interpreted)
• Remedy 1 ofAbd-WMC (Cold fusion and related articles)
• Remedy 12 ofDigwuren (Topics related to Eastern Europe, broadly interpreted)
• Remedy 1 ofGibraltar (Gibraltar or other articles concerning the history, people, or political status of Gibraltar)
• Remedy 1 ofHomeopathy (Homeopathy and related articles)
• Remedy 4 ofMartinphi-ScienceApologist and remedy 12 ofPseudoscience (Articles relating to pseudoscience, broadly interpreted)
• Remedy 1 ofSeptember 11 conspiracy theories (Articles which relate to the events ofSeptember 11, broadly interpreted)
• Remedy 3 ofTranscendental Meditation movement (Transcendental meditation or other articles concerning Transcendental meditation and related biographies of living people, broadly interpreted)
• Remedy 13 ofAyn Rand (Ayn Rand or related articles or pages)
• All extant remedies ofThe Troubles, as amended and clarified (Articles relating to The Troubles, as well as the Ulster banner and British baronets)

(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 ofthe ongoing community discussion regarding inactive administrator accounts, and stands ready to play its part if necessary once consensus has been determined.

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.

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 theexisting article title until the resolution of the debate below.

   All discussions on the subject ofEn 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 onthe 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.

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 aneutral point of view; avoidingundue weight; carefully citing disputed statements toreliable sources; and avoidingedit-warring andincivility.

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 butwarnings may be given and should belogged appropriately.

All sanctions imposed under the original remedy shall continue in full force.

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).

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).

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.

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

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

Amendment 4 toWikipedia: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").

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

Remedy 2 ofWikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tothwolf ("reJBsupreme (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.

The words "such asTime Cube" are struck from principle #15 ofWikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience ("Obvious pseudoscience"). Finding of fact #9 ofWikipedia: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."

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

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

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

Decided on 13 April 2010:

The administrator permissions ofAltenmann (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 ofWikipedia: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 througha request for adminship.

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 mentorfluent in French is appointed. The special language mentors selected must be approved by the Arbitration Committee. Mentors shall ensure thatWikipedia'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 thetopic 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.

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 ofBrews 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, andHell in a Bucket are indefinitely restricted from advocacy for or commenting onBrews 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.

Decided on 19 March 2010:

This case is accepted, but will not be opened unless and untilA 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.

Decided on 15 March 2010:

The Arbitration Committee notes and deplores the acrimonious nature of the dispute betweenShoemaker's Holiday andDurova, 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 theWikipedia: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.

Decided on 15 March 2010:

1) The unblock ofUser:Brews ohare byUser: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 ofWP: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 newWP:RfA or through a request to the Arbitration Committee.

2) The Arbitration Committee modifies theRestriction 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 asWP:AN orWP:ANI). If consensus in such discussions is hard to judge or unclear, the parties should submit a request for clarification on theproper 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.

Decided on 5 March 2010:

1) The Arbitration Committee notes that the conditions put forward by remedies during theIreland 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 ade facto consensus on the matter owing to the stability of theIreland manual of style and enjoins the community to avoid needlessly rehashing the disputes.

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.

Decided on 13 February 2010:

1) Topic ban narrowed (Radeksz)

The topic ban applied toRadeksz (talk ·contribs) is amended. Radeksz may edit articles inCategory: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 toMartintg (talk ·contribs) is amended. Martintg may edit the articles listedhere 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.

Decided on 2 February 2010:

1) Abd and William M. Connolley prohibited from interacting

Abd (talk ·contribs) andWilliam 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.

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 therelevant 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.

Decided on 28 January 2010:

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

Decided on 28 January 2010:

1) Topic ban narrowed

The topic ban applied toRadeksz (talk ·contribs) is amended. Radeksz may edit the articles listedhere 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 toRadeksz (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 atWikipedia talk:WikiProject Poland.

Decided on 19 January 2010:

1) Exception to topic ban

Brews ohare (talk ·contribs) is permitted to participate infeatured 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'sfeatured article candidacies. This shall constitute an exception to the topic ban imposed on him (remedy#4.2).

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 theBadlydrawnjeff 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.

Decided on 19 January 2010:

Imposition of discretionary sanctions

TheFalun Gong decision is modified as follows:

(a) Thearticle 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.

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 completelydisengaging.

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 theprevious 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 additionalbot 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.

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.

Decided on 21 October 2009 :

Wikipedia:Date formatting and linking poll,Wikipedia talk:Full-date unlinking bot#RFC, andWikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Full-date unlinking bot indicate thatFull-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 theBot 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.

Decided on 11 October 2009 :

In response to acase request submitted byUser:Jehochman the committee decided toreject the case and instead deal with the matter by motion.

Motion 1: GlassCobra
GlassCobra (talk ·contribs) nominatedLaw (talk ·contribs) foradminship. Law was an undisclosed account of previously 9-month blocked and desysopped editorThe 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 anArbCom clerkand 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 atrequests 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.

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

Decided on 11 October 2009 :

The Arbitration Committee has been informed thatLaw (talk ·contribs) is an alternate account ofThe 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 theUser: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 byLaw, 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.

Motion 1 Link

Decided on 17 August 2009 :

Having considered all the requests for amendment and requests for clarification submitted following the decision inWikipedia: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 theDate 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.

Decided on 15 August 2009 :Having considered the request to lift the remaining restriction (remedy X) inthe 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

Decided on 14 August 2009:

The Arbitration Committee:

1. Finds that the circumstances of The Rambling Man's resignation during theDate 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.

Decided on 5 August 2009 :

• 1.1) On 21 May, auseradded the{{retired}} template to the userpage ofanother user. An administrator,Bishonen,reverted the addition with the edit summary "Rm 'retired' tag, which is none of [your] business". The user thenstated 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 Bishonenreplied with "Yes, I do, you little shit. Don't interfere with [another user's] page. Now get lost. Shoo!" The user initiateda 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 discussionJimbo Walesblocked Bishonen for three hours.
• 1.2) Although people do not "own" their user pages, editors should avoid – withcertain 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 subsequentlyapologised 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 - andprior 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 byblocking policy, and it was not untilhalf an hour afterannouncing it at the incidents noticeboard that he did so. In his announcement of the block on the incidents noticeboard, Jimbo Walesstated "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 laterclarified 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'srecognition 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.

Decided on 4 August 2009 :

• The administrative permissions ofAitias (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 viaWP: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, viewablehere, should he rename.

Decided on 1 August 2009 :

• TheUtgard Loki (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log) account is to be unblocked and clearly identified as being an alternate account of Geogre.Geogre (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log) remains indefinitely prohibited from maintaining any other alternate account without disclosing it publicly.

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.

Decided on 18 July 2009 :

• The Arbitration Committee will not undo their desysopping of Everyking, but recommend he pursue reconfirmation through RfA.

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.

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.

Decided on 28 May 2009:

• In remedy 1.1 ("Area of conflict") of theWest Bank - Judea and Samaria case, "... the Palestine/Israel dispute ..." is replaced with "... the Arab-Israeli conflict ...".

Decided on 13 May 2009 :

• The community enacted topic ban onuser:Vintagekits anduser: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.

Decided on 22 April 2009 :

• user:EddieSegoura was banned by decision of the community, and therefore should appeal his ban to the community at theAdministrators' Noticeboard. A discussion to that effect was opened when this request was archived (WP:AN#EddieSegoura Ban Appeal at this point, an archive link will be provided at that time).

Passed on 08 April 09 :

• user:Mitchazenia may regain his adminship via RFA, request to the arbitration committee, or request to a bureaucrat.

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.

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)

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 atWikipedia:Requests for arbitration/E104421-Tajik#Log of blocks, bans, and restrictions.

User:Coffee andUser: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.

• 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 ofWikipedia: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.

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.

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

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 extendedindefinitely 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.

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.

The background for the most recent ban is atWikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive91#HK_enforcement. Accordingly, I propose thatWikipedia: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.

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.

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.

In light of his continued and flagrant violation of his restrictions using sockpuppets, as documented byCategory:Wikipedia:Suspected sockpuppets of Lightbringer andWikipedia: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 toLightbringer (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 usernameUser:LightBringer is completely unrelated to this motion and the associated case.

Instantnood (talk ·contribs) is placed onWikipedia: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.

Huaiwei (talk ·contribs) is placed onWikipedia: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 (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.

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 (talk ·contribs) (using whatever account or IP address) is banned from Wikipedia for a period of one year.

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.

 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