This is the central log for all sanctions issued pursuant to an
Arbitration Committee contentious topics remedy in 2010 as well as any appeals or modifications made to sanctions issued in 2010.
The required information is the user or page the sanction is being applied to, enforcing administrator, date, nature of sanction, including expiry date (if applicable), basis or context (such as link to AE request), and a diff of the user notification (if applicable).
“
All sanctions and page restrictions must be logged by the administrator who applied the sanction or page restriction at
Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log. Whenever a sanction or page restriction is appealed or modified, the administrator amending it must append a note recording the amendment to the original log entry.
To be valid, sanctions must be clearly and unambiguously labelled as an arbitration enforcement action (such as with "arbitration enforcement", "arb enforcement", "AE" or "WP:AE" in the
Wikipedia log entry or the edit summary). If a sanction has been logged as an arbitration enforcement action but has not been clearly labelled as an arbitration enforcement action any uninvolved administrator may amend the sanction (for example, a null edit or reblocking with the same settings) on behalf of the original administrator. Labelling a sanction which has been logged does not make the administrator who added the label the "enforcing administrator" unless there is confusion as to who intended the sanction be arbitration enforcement.
A central log of all page restrictions and sanctions (including blocks, bans, page protections or other restrictions) placed as arbitration enforcement (including contentious topic restrictions) is to be maintained by the Committee and its clerks at
Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log.
Quzeyli (
talk·contribs) is blocked for one week for editing warring using IPs, placed on an 1RR restriction for 3 months on articles related to Armenian monasteries, broadly construed, is limited to one account and may not edit through IPs, per
SPI case.
Tim Song (
talk)
20:33, 12 April 2010 (UTC)reply
Aregakn (
talk·contribs) is liable, for the next year, to be blocked for an appropriate duration should he describe as vandalism any edit in the area of conflict, reverting which would not be exempt from the
3RR.
Stifle (
talk)
09:01, 10 May 2010 (UTC)reply
Hittit (
talk·contribs) is liable to be blocked for an appropriate duration should he describe as vandalism any edit in the area of conflict, reverting which would not be exempt from the
3RR, should he use a misleading edit summary, should he exceed one revert per week on articles in the area of conflict, or should he fail to discuss any revert he does make on the talk page in no fewer than 50 words in English within 30 minutes of the revert. The misleading edit summary restriction is effective through the end of July; the other sanctions are effective for one year, and for the avoidance of doubt are concurrent with any other sanction to which Hittit may be subject.
Stifle (
talk)
09:01, 10 May 2010 (UTC)reply
Anonymous IP editor 70.133.74.244(
talk·contribs·WHOIS) (prior IPs: 71.137.192.11 and multiple others) blocked 24hrs for revert-warring on
Nicolaus Copernicus Monument in Toruń, and placed under indefinite ban on editing while logged out due to long prior history of persistent edit-warring through dynamic IPs. Editor is required to create an account and only edit through it whenever making potentially contentious edits on German–Polish topics. Aanon IP edits attributable to this user may be treated like edits of a banned user.
Fut.Perf.☼12:04, 15 November 2009 (UTC)reply
Topic ban and revert parole reinstated for another 6 months due to persistent prior breaches of restrictions, enforced by preemptive block until user promises to heed restrictions. Details here:
[3],
[4]Fut.Perf.☼13:20, 11 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Voyevoda (
talk·contribs) blocked 2 weeks and placed under revert limitation (1rv/week for 6 months; plus requirement of preceding talk page explanation and 4 hours waiting time before any revert);
Galassi (
talk·contribs) blocked 24 hours for breach of previously imposed 1RR; and
Mibelz (
talk·contribs) blocked 12 hours for 3RR violation and warned of possible further sanctions; all for edit-warring on
History of Kiev.
Fut.Perf.☼13:36, 22 March 2010 (UTC)reply
Voyevoda blocked 3 months and revert limitation reset to last for another 6 months after this block expires, for continued revert-warring and systematic breaches of the limitation.
Fut.Perf.☼13:25, 25 April 2010 (UTC)reply
Varsovian (
talk·contribs) restricted as follows in the area of conflict per
this discussion: He may not comment on
WP:AE requests that have not either been made by him or against him. Also, whenever he alleges misconduct by another editor, he must with the same edit provide all diffs that are required to substantiate his allegations, or link to the place where he has already provided these diffs, if he has not already provided them in the same section of the discussion at issue. Sandstein 19:32, 28 May 2010 (UTC)reply
Unblocked after discussion and apology by user. Bandurist remains topic-banned indefinitely from all edits related to WWII history and Ukrainian–Polish–Jewish–Russian ethnic conflicts.
Fut.Perf.☼17:48, 21 June 2010 (UTC)reply
Tbma (
talk·contribs) and
Posse72 (
talk·contribs) are under an indefinite page ban from
Battle of Tali-Ihantala. They may still participate on the article's talk page. If Tbma and Posse72 can come to an agreement on working together to improve the article, the ban can be lifted. These editors were previously blocked for the same issue and were given the DIGWUREN warning.
EdJohnston (
talk)
00:01, 25 July 2010 (UTC)reply
Dojarca (
talk·contribs) is prohibited from commencing or participating in dispute resolution or enforcement processes (including
arbitration enforcement) relating to user conduct within the area of conflict (as defined by
WP:DIGWUREN#Discretionary sanctions) for a period of two months, save for processes concerning his or her own conduct. To avoid doubt, "commencing or participating in" includes doing so by proxy. Per
AE. Dojarca is also taken to have been notified of discretionary sanctions (it being clear from participation in arbitration enforcement that he or she is aware of them). --
Mkativerata (
talk)
20:50, 13 December 2010 (UTC)reply
Wee Curry Monster is subject to a standard 0RR restriction for all articles about or concerning the history, people, or political status of Gibraltar for 30 days. As with normal revert restrictions, good faith edits reverting vandals and known sockpuppets are not subject to this restriction.
Wee Curry Monster is warned against bad faith accusations and that further disruption will result in escalating sanctions and advised to pursue dispute resolution to resolve any disagreements.
Richard Keatinge is warned to refrain from incivility and encouraged to utilize appropriate venues for resolving user conduct complaints. Any future talk page disruption will be handled under discretionary sanctions (
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gibraltar#Discretionary sanctions).
Human Rights Believer (
talk·contribs) - blocked again for 48 hours then later for a week, the latter being extended to indefinitely. Blocks were for edit warring on Balkans-related articles, modifying others users' talk-page comments, and creating a controversial Balkans-related redirect. See
[26].
Olaf Davis (
talk)
22:27, 2 February 2010 (UTC)reply
I have clarified that the revert limitation excludes reverts of obvious vandalism (which is to say, edits that someone who has never seen the page before would say are vandalism) and reverts of BLP violations, but not reverts of edits from banned users.
Stifle (
talk)
11:25, 3 May 2010 (UTC)reply
The above ban has been commuted for both parties. The parties are now banned from editing articles related to the Balkans, broadly construed, for two weeks. Parties are also restricted to one revert per 24-hour period for four months. These restrictions are to run concurrently. The WordsmithCommunicate15:19, 7 May 2010 (UTC)reply
Saguamundi (
talk·contribs) blocked 72hours, banned from editing while logged out, and placed under revert limitation (1rv/page/24hrs, with requirement of prior talk page explanation plus 3 hours waiting time between explanation and revert edit), for persistent slow edit-warring through dynamic IPs on
Istanbul.
Fut.Perf.☼16:53, 22 June 2010 (UTC)reply
Broadened topic ban rescinded and original topic ban left untouched, but per agreement, any "Continued disruption relating to any WP:ARBMAC related topic or civility issues will result in an automatic indefinite block." without possibility of appeal. See above
Toddst1 (
talk)
01:41, 4 May 2011 (UTC)reply
Sulmues (
talk·contribs) is limited to one revert per rolling 24-hour period on all articles relating to Balkans subjects, broadly construed, for six months, effective upon the expiration or lifting of the 2-week block imposed by
Mkativerata (
talk·contribs). Furthermore, they are required to discuss any reverts they do make on the talk page in a minimum of 50 words, in English, within 30 minutes of the revert. See
AN3 report.
T. Canens (
talk)
00:56, 16 October 2010 (UTC)reply
On appeal, block lifted as of 12:42, 12 July 2010 (UTC) conditioned upon (1) a 30-day voluntary topic restriction from all content and discussion related to
Israel and/or
Palestine, broadly construed, followed by (2) a 30-day topic ban from all content and discussions related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, broadly construed. 6-month topic ban will be lifted if terms of unblock is completely complied with. See
[36].
T. Canens (
talk)
12:42, 12 July 2010 (UTC)reply
Both users further banned from reporting each other for alleged violations of the topic ban, or taking any action to bring the attention of another user to any such alleged violation.
Stifle (
talk)
08:12, 16 August 2010 (UTC)reply
Cryptonio (
talk·contribs) is topic banned from the area of conflict indefinitely, see
[37]; Cryptonio may appeal to the Committee or the community at any time, but no appeal to me will be entertained until three months have elapsed.
T. Canens (
talk)
08:16, 1 August 2010 (UTC)reply
Six-Day Warset to Level 2 Pending Changes protection following edit warring. All editors on article have been warned
WP:GS applies to this article. --
WGFinley (
talk) 06:35, 11 August 2010 (UTC). Pending Changes removed as had no effect on the edit warring. --
WGFinley (
talk)
16:28, 16 August 2010 (UTC)reply
Technically, since the ArbCom ruling only allows blocks up to a year, only the block up to the first year falls under the purview of ArbCom sanctions (i.e. the remainder of the block can be overturned per normal rules). -- tariqabjotu09:44, 21 August 2010 (UTC)reply
Eric1985 (
talk·contribs) blocked indefinitely, for off-wiki meatpuppetry regarding this area, with the intent to do the same in other areas of Wikipedia as well. See
AE thread (even though the thread was started to deal with different users. Technically, since the ArbCom ruling only allows blocks up to a year, only the block up to the first year falls under the purview of ArbCom sanctions (i.e. the remainder of the block can be overturned per normal rules). -- tariqabjotu11:41, 21 August 2010 (UTC)reply
Per
AE thread,
Gilabrand (
talk·contribs) is limited to one revert per rolling 24-hour period per article on all articles within the area of conflict, as defined in
WP:ARBPIA#Area of conflict, until 00:00, 1 February 2011 (UTC). Furthermore, they are required to discuss any reverts they do make on the talk page, in English, within 30 minutes of the revert, excepting reverts of obvious (as in, obvious to someone who has no knowledge of the subject) vandalism, as defined in
WP:VAND.
T. Canens (
talk)
21:01, 3 November 2010 (UTC)reply
No party to an interaction ban imposed above may react to an alleged violation of the interaction ban by the other party except by the procedure specified in the AE thread.
T. Canens (
talk)
21:57, 29 November 2010 (UTC)reply
Nableezy's ban on commenting on or interacting with Jaakobou is lifted on appeal, as the other party is currently indefinitely topic banned.
T. Canens (
talk)
09:19, 24 July 2012 (UTC)reply
18:00, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
EdJohnston imposed a wider topic ban from Race and Intelligence, that applies to all pages of Wikipedia, on
Captain Occam and
Ferahgo the Assassin, to last until the lifting of remedy #8 above. Some exceptions are listed in the AE report. Link to
AE thread.
06:35, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Tim Song blocked
Tasbian (
talk·contribs) for 55 hours for disruptive editing, and notified the same regarding the discretionary topic ban, per
AE thread.
04:45, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
Orderinchaos, following
Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Tasbian, extended Tasbian's block to 1 month and blocked several socks for evasion of the above block. None of the socks' edits related to Scientology, although were disruptive in character.
14:38, 28 July 2010 Shell Kinney (talk | contribs | block) blocked JessaRinaldi (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 24 hours (Violations of the Biographies of living persons policy) (unblock | change block)
User:Zscout370(Return Fire)21:05, 28 July 2010 (UTC)reply
23:09, August 13, 2010 Rodhullandemu (talk | contribs | block) blocked JDPhD (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 1 week (sanctioned for breach of WP:ARBSCI) (unblock | change block) also topic-banned from all Scientology-related article for three months
[48].
Some were listed here to be limited to one account, where the normal guideline is to have them announce which singular account to be used and block the rest. Some are suspected to be sockpuppets of Shutterbug, as well. -
Penwhale | dance in the air and
follow his steps04:24, 28 September 2010 (UTC)reply
Delicious carbuncle (
talk·contribs), per [
[49]: for a persistent campaign of harassment against another wikipedian, conducted with the help of deliberate
WP:POINT violations at the expense of a
WP:BLP subject, D.c. is topic-banned from all edits relating to Scientology, including but not limited to an interaction ban against bringing forward any further Sc.-related complaints against
User:Cirt.
Fut.Perf.☼ 19:45, 13 December 2010 (UTC) Overturned on appeal for technical reasons, see
[50]Elen of the Roads (
talk)
13:13, 17 December 2010 (UTC)reply