Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index
| Wikipedia Arbitration |
|---|
 |
|
|
| Track related changes |
| Wikipedia Arbitration |
|---|
|
|
|
| Track related changes |
This is an archive of the results of all cases completed by the Arbitration Committee, sorted by year. The archives may be searched using the boxes below. To improve accessibility, each year has been moved to its own subpage, each accessible through the table below. Also see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Cases/All.
 | |
| 2025 | ||
| 2024 | ||
| 2023 | ||
| 2022 | ||
| 2021 | ||
| 2020 | ||
| 2019 | ||
| 2018 | ||
| 2017 | ||
| 2016 | ||
| 2015 | ||
| 2014 | ||
| 2013 | ||
| 2012 | ||
| 2011 | ||
| 2010 | ||
| 2009 | ||
| 2008 | ||
| 2007 | ||
| 2006 | ||
| 2005 | ||
| 2004 |
 | This is an information page. It is not an encyclopedic article, nor one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines; rather, its purpose is to explain certain aspects of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests. It may reflect differing levels of consensus and vetting. |
 | This page in a nutshell: This is an index of statements of principles made by the Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee in the course of deciding various Requests for Arbitration cases. While these do not have the force of Wikipedia:Policy, they are frequently dispositive in the outcome of various dispute resolutions, and are sometimes seen as actionable by administrators, especially in the application of discretionary sanctions. |
| Wikipedia Arbitration |
|---|
|
|
|
| Track related changes |
Accessibility of sources
Many citations on the English Wikipedia are to online resources, and this is unsurprising for an online encyclopedia. Online sources are easier to access and easier for editors to verify. Still, many reliable sources are not readily available to everyone online, so reliable sources should not be rejected merely because they are difficult or costly to access. Special care should be taken when using difficult-to-access sources, especially when used to support contentious claims. Editors should take care to provide full bibliographic information, such as the source's reference number or an in-source quotation, to help editors and readers find and verify the claims in the sources. -2023-05
Accountability for conduct
Editors are accountable for their conduct. As such, they are expected to respond appropriately to queries about their actions and to justify them where needed. Where the Arbitration Committee, the community or other authorised person imposes a sanction, editors are expected to comply with both the letter and spirit of the sanction. -2017-09
Accuracy of sources
The contents of source materials must be presented accurately and fairly. By quoting from or citing to a source, an editor represents that the quoted or cited material fairly and accurately reflects or summarizes the contents and meaning of the original source, and that it is not being misleadingly or unfairly excerpted out of context. Failure to accurately reflect sources, whether by accident or design, is a serious matter as it undermines the integrity of the encyclopedia. Repeated failures to represent sources accurately may result in sanctions. -2015-01
Accuracy of sourcing
The contents of source materials must be presented accurately and fairly. By quoting from or citing to a source, an editor certifies his or her good-faith belief that the quoted or cited material fairly and accurately reflects or summarizes information contained in the original source, and that it is not being misleadingly or unfairly excerpted out of context. Misuse or misleading use of sources, intentional or otherwise, violates our policies requiring that article content be verifiable and prohibiting original research. -2011-04
Admin shopping
Raising essentially the same issue on multiple noticeboards, or to multiple administrators, is detrimental to finding and achieving consensus. -2015-06
Administrator accountability
Administrators are accountable for their actions involving administrator tools, as unexplained administrator actions can demoralize other editors who lack such tools. Administrators who seriously or repeatedly act in a problematic manner, or who have lost the trust or confidence of the community, may be sanctioned or have their administrator rights removed by the arbitration committee. Administrators should be reasonably aware of community standards and expectations when using administrative tools. -2019-05
Administrators are accountable for their actions involving administrative tools. As such, they are expected to respond appropriately to queries about their administrative actions and to justify their actions where needed. Criticism of the merits of administrative actions are acceptable within the bounds of avoiding personal attacks and civility. -2014-01
Administrators are expected to objectively consider criticism and questions relating to their decisions. For an administrator to not promptly and appropriately deal with concerns, without good cause, may constitute misconduct. -2019-02
Administrators are expected to objectively consider criticism and questions relating to their decisions including those raised by anonymous editors. For an administrator to not promptly and appropriately deal with concerns, without good cause, may constitute misconduct. -2020-02, 2020-02, 2021-03
Administrator conduct
Administrators are expected to observe a high standard of conduct and retain the trust of the community at all times. Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct and administrator actions and to justify them when needed. Sustained or serious disruption of Wikipedia is incompatible with the expectations and responsibilities of administrators, and consistent or egregious poor judgment may result in the removal of administrator tools. -2017-10, 2019-05
Administrators are expected to lead by example and to behave in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with others. Administrators are expected to follow Wikipedia policies and to perform their duties to the best of their abilities. Occasional mistakes are entirely compatible with adminship; administrators are not expected to be perfect. However, sustained or serious disruption of Wikipedia is incompatible with the status of administrator, and consistently or egregiously poor judgment may result in the removal of administrator status. Administrators who have been blocked for purported violations should not remove the block themselves even if they believe it was clearly improper. See Wikipedia:Unblocking#Unblocking. -2018-12
Administrators are expected to lead by example and to behave in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with others. Administrators are expected to follow Wikipedia policies and to perform their duties to the best of their abilities. Occasional mistakes are entirely compatible with adminship; administrators are not expected to be perfect. However, sustained or serious disruption of Wikipedia is incompatible with the expectations and responsibilities of administrators, and consistent or egregious poor judgment may result in the removal of administrator tools. Administrators should strive to model appropriate standards of courtesy and civility to other editors. (WP:ADMINCOND) -2019-09
Administrators are trusted members of the community; they are expected to lead by example and to 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. -2010-02
Administrators are expected to lead by example and to behave in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with others. Administrators are expected to follow Wikipedia policies and to perform their duties to the best of their abilities. Occasional mistakes are entirely compatible with adminship; administrators are not expected to be perfect. However, sustained or serious disruption of Wikipedia is incompatible with the status of administrator, and consistently or egregiously poor judgment may result in the removal of administrator status. -2016-10
Administrators are trusted members of the community who are expected to lead by example. They are expected to follow Wikipedia's policies and restrictions which are placed upon them. Occasional mistakes are entirely compatible with this; administrators are not expected to be perfect. However, sustained or serious disruption of Wikipedia is incompatible with the expectations and responsibilities of administrators, and consistent or egregious poor judgement may result in the removal of administrator tools. -2017-09
Administrators are trusted members of the community, who are expected to follow Wikipedia policies and are held to a high standard of conduct. They are expected to perform administrative tasks to the best of their abilities. Occasional mistakes are entirely compatible with this; administrators are not expected to be perfect. However, repeated or egregiously poor judgment may result in the removal of administrator status. -2019-02, 2020-02, 2020-02, 2021-03
Administrators are trusted members of the community. They are expected to lead by example and to behave in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with others. Administrators are expected to follow Wikipedia policies and to perform their duties to the best of their abilities. Occasional mistakes are entirely compatible with adminship; administrators are not expected to be perfect. However, sustained poor judgment or multiple violations of policy (in the use of administrator tools, or otherwise) may result in the removal of administrator status. Administrators are also expected to learn from experience and from justified criticisms of their actions. -2020-01
Administrators should lead by example and should behave in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with others. Occasional mistakes are entirely compatible with adminship; administrators are not expected to be perfect. However, serious disruption of Wikipedia, especially when repeated, through behavior such as incivility and personal attacks, is incompatible with the expectations and responsibilities of administrators. –2023-07
Administrator involvement
With few exceptions, editors are expected to not act as administrators in cases where, to a neutral observer, they could reasonably appear involved. Involvement is generally construed very broadly by the community, to include current or past conflicts with an editor (or editors), and disputes on topics, regardless of the nature, age, or outcome of the dispute.While there will always be borderline cases, best practices suggest that, whenever in doubt, an administrator should draw the situation to the attention of fellow sysops, such as by posting on an appropriate noticeboard, so that other sysops can provide help. -2014-01, 2018-12
With few exceptions, editors are expected to not act as administrators in cases where, to a neutral observer, they could reasonably appear involved. Involvement is generally construed very broadly by the community, to include current or past conflicts with an editor (or editors), and disputes on topics, regardless of the nature, age, or outcome of the dispute. While there will always be borderline cases, whenever in doubt, an administrator should draw the situation to the attention of fellow sysops, such as by posting on an appropriate noticeboard, so that other sysops can provide help. -2019-05
Editors are expected to not act as administrators in cases where, to a neutral observer, they could reasonably appear involved. Involvement is generally construed very broadly by the community, to include current or past conflicts with an editor (or editors), and disputes on topics, regardless of the nature, age, or outcome of the dispute; however, involvement does not include prior interactions in a purely administrative role or in making minor edits that do not show bias. The sole listed exception to this prohibition is for straightforward cases, such as blatant vandalism, within which involved editors may take "obvious" administrative actions if "any reasonable administrator would have probably come to the same conclusion". -2023-07, 2023-12
Administrator tools are not to be used in connection with disputes in which the administrator is involved as an editor.
While there will always be borderline cases, best practices suggest that, whenever in doubt, an administrator should draw the situation to the attention of fellow sysops, such as by posting on an appropriate noticeboard, so that other sysops can provide help. -2015-08
With few exceptions, editors are expected to not act as administrators in disputes in which they have been involved. Involvement is generally construed very broadly by the community, to include current or past conflicts with an editor (or editors), and disputes on topics, regardless of the nature, age, or outcome of the dispute.
While there will always be borderline cases, best practices suggest that, whenever in doubt, an administrator should draw the situation to the attention of fellow sysops, such as by posting on an appropriate noticeboard, so that other sysops can provide help. -2020-01
With few exceptions, editors are expected to not act as administrators in disputes in which they have been involved. Involvement is generally construed very broadly by the community, to include current or past conflicts with an editor (or editors), and disputes on topics, regardless of the nature, age, or outcome of the dispute. Involvement does not require that the administrator also has a conflict of interest. –2021-03
Editors are expected to not act as administrators in cases where, to a neutral observer, they could reasonably appear involved. Involvement is generally construed very broadly by the community, to include current or past conflicts with an editor (or editors), and disputes on topics, regardless of the nature, age, or outcome of the dispute; however, involvement does not include prior interactions in a purely administrative role or in making minor edits that do not show bias. The sole listed exception to this prohibition is for straightforward cases, such as blatant vandalism, within which involved editors may take "obvious" administrative actions if "any reasonable administrator would have probably come to the same conclusion". See Wikipedia:Administrators#Involved admins. –2022-11
Editors are expected to not act as administrators in cases where, to a neutral observer, they could reasonably appear involved. Involvement is generally construed very broadly by the community, to include current or past conflicts with an editor (or editors), and disputes on topics, regardless of the nature, age, or outcome of the dispute; however, involvement does not include prior interactions in a purely administrative role or in making minor edits that do not show bias. The sole listed exception to this prohibition is for straightforward cases, such as blatant vandalism, within which involved editors may take "obvious" administrative actions if "any reasonable administrator would have probably come to the same conclusion". –2023-07
Administrator involvement - enforcement matters
In the context of arbitration enforcement, which is analogous to enforcement of the community sanctions at issue in this case, the Arbitration Committee has usually defined that "for the purpose of imposing sanctions ... an administrator will be considered 'uninvolved' if he or she has not previously participated in any content disputes on articles in the area of conflict." Of course, an administrator who has had significant prior disputes with a particular editor would similarly be considered "involved" with regard to a request for sanctions involving that editor.
However, an administrator's taking enforcement action against an editor under an arbitration or community-sanctions decision is not considered to be participation in a dispute that disqualifies the administrator from addressing later misconduct by that editor. It also is unacceptable for an editor to deliberately pick a quarrel with an administrator for the purpose of provoking the administrator into saying or doing something that will make him or her "involved." -2010-10
Administrator involvement - general
The purpose of defining involvement is to eliminate as much bias as possible. Bias in a topic area can result from things like editing the topic and having strong views even without editing the topic.
Editors are expected to not act as administrators in disputes in which they are involved. See Wikipedia:Administrators#Involved admins. For example, an administrator may be deemed too "involved" to block an editor if the administrator has had significant prior disputes with that editor, whether or not directly related to the current issue, or if the issue arises from a content dispute and the administrator is active in editing the article that is the subject of the dispute.
However, the policy also notes that "one important caveat is that an administrator who has interacted with an editor or article purely in an administrative role, or whose prior involvement consists of minor or obvious edits that do not speak to bias, is not involved and is not prevented from acting on the article, editor, or dispute either in an administrative role or in an editorial role. This is because one of the roles of administrators is precisely to deal with such matters, at length if necessary." There will always be borderline cases; in general, if an administrator is not sure whether he or she would be considered "involved" or not, the better practice is to draw the situation to the attention of other administrators to resolve, such as by posting on an appropriate noticeboard. -2010-10
Administrator participation in enforcement
There is a trade-off between having a relatively small group of administrators concentrate on arbitration enforcement or community sanctions enforcement versus having a larger number of administrators do so. Having a handful of administrators handle enforcement requests helps ensure that these administrators are familiar with enforcement policies and procedures and come to learn the issues associated with enforcement problems that arise in a particular case. On the other hand, as the same administrators handle multiple enforcement requests, they may increasingly be subject to accusations of "involvement" or bias and prejudgment based on their earlier actions in the same case.
In general, as more administrators participate in enforcement of a decision and develop the relevant expertise, the less necessary it will be for an administrator who might be arguably or borderline "involved" to handle an enforcement request. Conversely, it is understandable that if other qualified administrators are not available to handle the requests, then those who are willing to address them, even if borderline "involved", are more likely to continue making enforcement decisions. -2010-10
Administrator standards
Administrators are trusted members of the community, who are expected to follow Wikipedia policies and are held to a high standard of conduct. They are expected to pursue their duties to the best of their abilities. Occasional mistakes are entirely compatible with this; administrators are not expected to be perfect. However, consistently or egregiously poor judgement may result in the removal of administrator status. -2015-08
Administrators
Administrators are trusted members of the community. They are expected to lead by example and to behave in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with others. Administrators are expected to follow Wikipedia policies and to perform their duties to the best of their abilities. Occasional mistakes are entirely compatible with adminship; administrators are not expected to be perfect. However, sustained poor judgment or multiple violations of policy (in the use of Administrator tools, or otherwise) may result in the removal of administrator status. Administrators are also expected to learn from experience and from justified criticisms of their actions. -2009-06
Administrators are trusted members of the community, and expected to lead by example and behave in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with others. Administrators are expected to follow Wikipedia policies and to perform their duties to the best of their abilities. Occasional mistakes are entirely compatible with adminship; administrators are not expected to be perfect. However, sustained poor judgment, multiple violations of policy (in the use of Administrator tools, or otherwise), or particularly egregious behaviour, may result in the removal of administrator status. Administrators are also expected to learn from experience and from justified criticisms of their actions. -2012-02
Administrators are trusted members of the community, and are expected to perform their duties to the best of their abilities; to behave in a respectful and civil manner in their interactions with others; to follow Wikipedia policies; to lead by example; and to learn from experience and from justified criticisms of their actions.
Occasional mistakes are entirely compatible with adminship; administrators are not expected to be perfect. However, sustained poor judgment, multiple violations of policy—whether in the use of administrator tools or otherwise—or particularly egregious behaviour may result in the removal of administrator status. -2013-03
Administrators are trusted members of the community who, after being vetted by the community, have been granted access to a certain set of tools, including the ability to effect blocks and unblocks. Within the boundaries set by policy, administrators are allowed to exercise their discretion in using said tools for the purpose of maintaining the encyclopaedia and protecting its integrity; however, abuse of tools or their repeated misuse may lead to sanctions, up to and including a desysop. -2014-12
Administrators are trusted members of the community and are expected to follow Wikipedia policies. They are expected to pursue their duties to the best of their abilities. Occasional mistakes are entirely compatible with this; administrators are not expected to be perfect. However, consistently or egregiously poor judgement may result in the removal of administrator status. -2018-01, 2022-11
Administrators are expected to lead by example and to behave in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with others. To the best of their abilities, administrators are expected to follow Wikipedia policy and perform their duties with care and judgment. Occasional mistakes are entirely compatible with adminship; administrators are not expected to be perfect. However, sustained or serious disruption of Wikipedia is incompatible with the status of administrator. Administrators who egregiously or repeatedly act in a problematic manner, or administrators who have lost the trust or confidence of the community, may be sanctioned or have their access removed. Administrators are also expected to learn from experience and from justified criticisms of their actions or conduct. -2012-07
Administrators are trusted members of the community and are expected to follow Wikipedia policies. Their conduct is held to a high standard as a result of this trust. Occasional mistakes are entirely compatible with this; administrators are not expected to be perfect. However, consistently or egregiously poor judgement may result in the removal of administrator status. -2023-07, 2023-12
Administrators are expected to lead by example and to behave respectfully and civilly in their interactions with others. They are expected to follow Wikipedia policy and to perform their duties with care and judgment. Occasional mistakes are entirely compatible with adminship; administrators are not expected to be perfect. However, administrators who egregiously or repeatedly act in a problematic manner, or administrators who lose the trust or confidence of the community, may be sanctioned or have their access removed. Administrators are also expected to learn from experience and from justified criticism of their actions or conduct. -2014-01
Administrators are trusted members of the community who, after being vetted by the community, have been granted access to a certain set of tools, including the ability to effect blocks and unblocks and to protect and unprotect pages from being edited. Within the boundaries set by policy, administrators are allowed to exercise their discretion in using said tools for the purpose of maintaining the encyclopaedia and protecting its integrity; however, abuse of tools or their repeated misuse may lead to sanctions, up to and including a desysop. -2014-01
Administrators are trusted members of the community, and are expected to perform their duties to the best of their abilities; to behave in a respectful and civil manner in their interactions with others; to follow Wikipedia policies; to lead by example; and to learn from experience and from justified criticisms of their actions. Occasional mistakes are entirely compatible with adminship; administrators are not expected to be perfect. -2015-06
Administrators are trusted members of the community. They are expected to lead by example and follow Wikipedia policies to the best of their abilities. Occasional mistakes are entirely compatible with adminship; administrators are not expected to be perfect. However, sustained poor judgment or multiple violations of policy (in the use of administrator tools, or otherwise) may result in the removal of administrator status. –2022-12
Administrators are trusted members of the community and are expected to follow Wikipedia policies. Their conduct is held to a high standard as a result of this trust. Occasional mistakes are entirely compatible with this; administrators are not expected to be perfect. However, consistently or egregiously poor judgement may result in the removal of administrator status. –2023-07
Administrators and 'involvement'
The "Involved admins" section of the Administrators policy states that an administrator who has interacted with an editor or topic area purely in an administrative role, or whose prior involvements are minor or obvious edits which do not speak to bias, is not involved and is not prevented from acting in an administrative capacity in relation to that editor or topic area. This is because one of the roles of administrators is precisely to deal with such matters, at length if necessary. Warnings, calm and reasonable discussion and explanation of those warnings, advice about community norms, and suggestions on possible wordings and approaches do not make an administrator 'involved'. -2015-01
Administrators and BLPs
The Biographies of Living People policy authorises administrators to "enforce the removal of clear BLP violations with page protection or by blocking the violator(s), even if they have been editing the article themselves or are in some other way involved. In less clear cases they should request the attention of an uninvolved administrator at Wikipedia:Administrators Noticeboard/Incidents."
Absent objective standards of what is clear and what is less clear, the "Not perfect" provision in the administrator policy is relevant: Administrators are expected to follow Wikipedia policies and to perform their duties to the best of their abilities. Occasional mistakes are entirely compatible with adminship; administrators are not expected to be perfect. However, sustained or serious disruption of Wikipedia is incompatible with the status of administrator, and consistently or egregiously poor judgment may result in the removal of administrator status. -2015-01
Administrators involved in disputes
Administrator tools are not to be used in connection with disputes in which the administrator is involved as an editor. In several recent instances, administrators involved in disputes over an issue or with a user have taken sysop actions relating to that dispute and then referred the actions a noticeboard for endorsement or review. This practice generally is not sufficient to comply with policy against action by "involved" administrators. In such circumstances, the administrator should not take the action but should instead report the issue to the noticeboard, perhaps with a suggestion for appropriate action, to be dealt with by another administrator. In limited circumstances, such as blatant vandalism or bad-faith harassment, an involved administrator may act, but such exceptions are likely to be rare. -2009-06
Administrator tools are not to be used in connection with disputes in which the administrator is involved as an editor. -2012-07
Administrators working in contentious areas
Administrators are trusted members of the community, are expected to follow Wikipedia policies, and are expected to pursue their duties to the best of their abilities. Occasional mistakes are entirely compatible with administrator status; administrators are not expected to be perfect. When working in stressful and contentious areas, administrators should consider periodically taking time out from the area of contention lest their own conduct inadvertently descend to the level for which they would sanction others. -2010-10
Administrators' pursuit of issues
Administrators should bear in mind that they have many colleagues. If an administrator finds themself in repeated disagreement with another good-faith but allegedly problematic editor, or if other editors disagree with the administrator's actions regarding that editor, it may be better practice for the administrator to request input or review from others, such as by posting on the appropriate noticeboard, rather than continue to address the issue unilaterally. This can be true even if the administrator may not formally be "involved" in a dispute with that editor. Whether to handle a matter oneself or seek broader input can be a judgment call as in more clear-cut instances, an individual administrator may be justified in addressing the problem decisively on their own. The question to be asked can be whether bringing more voices into the discussion will enhance the chances of a fair and well-informed resolution that will be respected as such by the affected editor and by others. A corollary is that this approach can work only if other admins and experienced editors are prepared to invest the time and effort needed to review a situation and provide input when asked to do so. -2019-09
Advocacy
Wikipedia strives towards a neutral point of view. Accordingly, it is not the appropriate venue for advocacy or for advancing a specific point of view. While coverage of all significant points of view is a necessary part of balancing an article, striving to give exposure to minority viewpoints that are not significantly expressed in reliable secondary sources is not. -2010-08
Wikipedia is not a venue for advocating or advancing a viewpoint or position. Editors should ensure that the reporting of different views on a subject adequately reflects the relative levels of support for those views, and that it does not give a false impression of parity, or give undue weight to a particular view. -2011-03
Wikipedia should not be used to advocate any particular position. The purpose of an encyclopedia is to state neutrally what is currently found in reliable, secondary sources, not to put forward arguments to promote or deride any particular view. -2013-10
Wikipedia articles should present a neutral view of their subject. Use of a Wikipedia article for advocacy or promotion is prohibited. -2014-04
Age of evidence
The arbitration policy does not place strict limits on the age of evidence that may be submitted in an arbitration case, although the Arbitration Committee will sometimes preemptively limit the scope of a case to a specific period of time. The Committee may choose to disregard or give less weight to evidence that is not recent. -2019-09, 2023-05
Allegations of improper conduct
When an editor of an article faces allegations of improper conduct, such as article ownership or failing to deal with potential conflicts of interest, then review of both sides of the dispute by uninvolved editors should be sought at the relevant noticeboards or the article talk page. If such independent reviews find cause for concern, then steps should be taken to deal with the issues raised. Such steps can include statements of disclosure in an editor's userspace, commitments to reduce involvement in an article, warning an editor for making groundless accusations, or agreeing to pursue further stages in dispute resolution. -2009-09
Allegations that an editor may be violating the policy on the protection of children
Reports that an editor may be violating Wikipedia's policy regarding the protection of children must be communicated in private to the Arbitration Committee or to the Wikimedia Foundation. Users must not discuss such allegations on-wiki; users who do so may receive sanctions up to and including an indefinite block, regardless of the correctness of the allegations. -2013-08
Anonymity and conflicts of interest
Wikipedia's policies allowing anonymous editing while discouraging conflicts of interest create a tension that necessarily is imperfectly resolved. Issues arising in this area must be addressed with a high degree of sensitivity to the competing concerns. -2010-05
Anyone can edit
Wikipedia was founded on the principle that "anyone can edit" and that by the collaboration of editors of all backgrounds, the best possible encyclopedia can be created. Hostility towards any editor is prohibited by Wikipedia's conduct policies and, if directed towards a particular group, can be especially damaging to the inclusivity of the project. -2020-02
Appeals against sanctions
Only the sanctioned editor may file an appeal against a sanction. Other editors may offer assistance, but the decision to appeal and the choice of venue may only be made by the sanctioned editor. Appeals filed by any user other than the one sanctioned may be closed at any time. However, any interested users may ask for clarifications, if they are acting in good faith. -2015-08
Applicability of BLP policy
The BLP policy applies only in relation to subjects who are living or recently deceased. There is no firm length of time after death when the policy ceases to apply. In exceptional cases, and normally only in relation to material that is especially contentious and/or has relevance to surviving relatives, this is sometimes extended for up to two years. -2015-08
Applicability of the BLP policy
All living people who are subjects of Wikipedia content are entitled to the protections of the biographies of living persons policy. An editor's personal dislike of the subject or their actions does not abrogate in any way the usual protections of the policy. -2013-10
Application of the BLP policy
There is widespread agreement in the Wikipedia community regarding the importance of the BLP policy. The policy has been adopted and since its inception repeatedly expanded and strengthened by the community. In addition, this Committee has reaffirmed the values expressed through that policy in a series of decisions and motions, and fundamental norms concerning biographical articles have been emphasized in a resolution of the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees. -2011-09
Appropriate participation in Arbitration Enforcement in every forum
Editors participating in enforcement cases and appeals must disclose fully their involvement, if any. While good-faith statements are welcome, editors are expected to discuss only evidence and procedure. Insults and personal attacks, soapboxing and casting aspersions are as unacceptable in enforcement discussions as elsewhere on Wikipedia. Uninvolved administrators are asked to ensure that enforcement cases are not disrupted. -2015-08
April Fool's Day
April Fool's Day jokes are a widespread tradition in the English-speaking world, reflected on Wikipedia as an expression of community jollity and tolerated by established consensus supported by the outcome of various noticeboard and deletion discussions. On Wikipedia the convention has been to speedy close vexatious AfDs but otherwise (for example with joke RfAs) to archive soon after midnight UTC on April 2 with a "humor" template. April Fools is a contentious tradition on Wikipedia, in part because it is not a fully international tradition. April Fool's Day jokes are not exempt from the biographies of living persons policy. -2016-06
ArbCom and RfA
Requests for adminship is the process by which the Wikipedia community decides who will become administrators. The task of determining whether consensus to promote exists falls solely in the hands of the bureaucrats. The Arbitration Committee is not tasked to relitigate this decision absent evidence of misconduct. –2021-03
Arbitration Enforcement
Arbitration enforcement (AE) is the noticeboard, set up by the Arbitration Committee and staffed by administrators, for editors to report suspected breaches of arbitration decisions. When enforcing arbitration decisions, administrators act as delegates of the Arbitration Committee and, in that role, they review the facts and, if necessary, take action. -2015-08, 2023-03
Arbitration Enforcement-imposed sanctions
In enforcing arbitration decisions, administrators should seek to create an acceptable collaborative editing environment within contentious topics. Administrators are expected to use their experience and judgment to balance (1) the need to assume good faith, to avoid biting genuine newcomers, and to allow responsible contributors maximum editing freedom with (2) the need to keep edit-warring, battleground conduct, and disruptive behaviour to a minimum. -2023-03
Arbitration in dispute resolution
A request for arbitration is the last step of dispute resolution on Wikipedia. With limited exceptions (such as emergency situations, "unusually divisive disputes among administrators", and matters directly referred by Jimbo Wales), it is expected that other avenues of dispute resolution will have been exhausted before an arbitration case is filed. Arbitration is the last resort for conflicts, rather than the first. -2009-06
A request for arbitration is the last step of dispute resolution on Wikipedia. With limited exceptions, it is expected that other avenues of dispute resolution will have been exhausted before an arbitration case is filed. Arbitration is the last resort for conflicts, rather than the first. -2016-10
Arbitration sanctions
The scope of sanctions imposed as remedies in arbitration cases, such as topic-bans, should be clearly defined so as to avoid later misunderstandings and disagreements. A sanction remedy should also clearly specify the duration of the sanction and the procedure, if any, available to the sanctioned user to seek lifting or modification of the sanction in due course. -2011-04
Article ownership
Editorial control over a Wikipedia article is vested in the editing community as a whole, rather than in any one editor; editors are expected to resolve disagreements through consensus within Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. -2010-04
Article probation
Articles may be placed on probation by the Arbitration Committee or the community. When an article is under probation, editors making disruptive edits may be subject to various administrative sanctions, depending on the terms of probation. -2011-03
Article sourcing
Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources. Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and to avoid novel interpretations of primary sources, though primary sources are permitted if used carefully. Material based purely on primary sources should be avoided. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors. -2011-11
Article subjects
Wikipedia articles are collaboratively edited, and article subjects may not dictate content. Given the sensitive nature of biographies of living persons, the editing community should seriously consider any concerns raised by article subjects about the verifiability and neutrality of material about living persons. Article subjects with such concerns should present them through an appropriate avenue. They may direct concerns to the article's talk page, the Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard, or to the Volunteer Response Team via email at info-en-q
wikimedia.org. -2018-07
Articles should be widely understandable
From WP:TECHNICAL: articles in Wikipedia should be understandable to the widest possible audience. For most articles, this means understandable to a general audience. Every reasonable attempt should be made to ensure that material is presented in the most widely understandable manner possible. -2011-03
Assuming good faith
Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users. Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, harassment, disruptive point-making, and gaming the system, is prohibited. Additionally, editors should presume that other editors, including those who disagree with them, are acting in good faith toward the betterment of the project, at least until strong evidence emerges to the contrary. Even when an editor becomes convinced that another editor is not acting in good faith, and has a reasonable basis for that belief, the editor should attempt to remedy the problem without resorting to inappropriate conduct of his or her own. -2014-12
At wit's end
In cases where all reasonable attempts to control the spread of disruption arising from long-term disputes have failed, the Committee may be forced to adopt seemingly draconian measures as a last resort for preventing further damage to the encyclopedia. -2012-07, 2015-11, 2019-12
In cases where all reasonable attempts to control the spread of disruption arising from long-term disputes have failed, the Committee may be forced to adopt exceptional measures as a last resort for preventing further damage to the encyclopedia. -2015-12
Automated and semi-automated editing
Fully automated bot editing and semi-automated editing scripts perform an important and valuable function on Wikipedia. To facilitate the regulation and coordination of such editing, the community has a long-established bot policy and a Bot Approvals Group responsible for reviewing potential bot operators' requests for bot approval "from a technical and quality-control perspective". -2017-03
Fully automated bot editing and semi-automated editing scripts perform an important and valuable function on Wikipedia. To facilitate the regulation and coordination of automated editing, the community has a long-established bot policy and a Bot Approvals Group responsible for reviewing potential bot operators' requests for bot approval. -2017-09
Avoiding apparent impropriety
All editors, and especially administrators, should strive to avoid conduct that might appear at first sight to violate policy. Examples include an administrator repeatedly making administrator actions that might reasonably be construed as reinforcing the administrator’s position in a content dispute, even where the administrator actually has no such intention; or an editor repeatedly editing in apparent coordination with other editors in circumstances which might give rise to reasonable but inaccurate suspicions of sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry. -2009-09
BLP exemption to edit warring is not absolute
Wikipedia:Edit warring#Exceptions notes "The following actions are not counted as reverts for the purposes of the three-revert rule: [...] Removal of libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced contentious material that violates the policy on biographies of living persons (BLP). What counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial. Consider reporting to the BLP noticeboard instead of relying on this exemption." -2015-08
Bad blood and feuding
Community attempts to resolve disputes calmly and expeditiously are thwarted when the processes are disrupted by inflammatory accusations and disparaging rhetoric as editors seemingly pursue long term feuds with each other. Users with a history of bad blood should take appropriate steps, including disengagement, to reduce rather than increase negative interpersonal contact. -2012-07
Baiting
Editing in a manner so as to provoke other editors goes against established Wikipedia policies, as well as the spirit of Wikipedia and the will of its editors. Editing in such a manner may be perceived as trolling and harassment. -2009-06, 2012-02
Banned editors
When an editor's conduct is exceptionally disruptive or inappropriate, that user may be banned from editing Wikipedia. Banned editors are prohibited from editing Wikipedia in any way, from any account or anonymously, and all contributions made in defiance of a ban are subject to immediate removal. While users in good standing are permitted to restore content from banned users by taking ownership of that content, such restoration should be undertaken rarely and with extreme caution, as banned editors have already had to be removed for disruptive and problematic behavior. A user who nonetheless chooses to do so accepts full responsibility for the consequences of the material so restored. -2014-10
Battlefield conduct
Wikipedia is a reference work, not a battlefield. Each and every user is expected to interact with others civilly, calmly, and in a spirit of cooperation. Borderline personal attacks and edit-warring are incompatible with this spirit. Use of the site to pursue feuds and quarrels is extremely disruptive, flies directly in the face of our key policies and goals, and is prohibited. Editors who are unable to resolve their personal or ideological differences are expected to keep mutual contact to a minimum. If battling editors fail to disengage, they may be compelled to do so through the imposition of restrictions. -2015-01
Battlefield editing
Wikipedia is a reference work, not a battlefield. Each and every user is expected to interact with others civilly, calmly, and in a spirit of cooperation. Use of the site to pursue personal feuds and quarrels is extremely disruptive, flies directly in the face of our key policies and goals. and is prohibited. Editors who are unable to resolve their personal or ideological differences are expected to keep mutual contact to a minimum. If battling editors fail to disengage, they may be compelled to do so through the use of blocks and bans. -2010-10
Battleground conduct
Wikipedia is not a forum for the creation or furtherance of grudges and personal disputes. A history of bad blood, poor interactions, and heated altercations between users can complicate attempts to reach consensus. Inflammatory accusations often perpetuate disputes, poison the well of existing discussions, and disrupt the editing atmosphere. Discussions should be held with a view toward reaching a solution that can gain a genuine consensus. Attempting to exhaust or drive off editors who disagree through hostile conduct, rather than through legitimate dispute-resolution methods pursued only when legitimately necessary, is destructive to the consensus process and is not acceptable. See also Wikipedia is not a battleground. -2014-10
Wikipedia is not a forum for the creation or furtherance of grudges and personal disputes. A history of bad blood, poor interactions, and heated altercations between users can complicate attempts to reach consensus on substantive content issues. Inflammatory accusations often perpetuate disputes, poison the well of existing discussions, and disrupt the editing atmosphere. Discussions should be held with a view toward reaching a solution that can gain a genuine consensus. Attempting to exhaust or drive off editors who disagree through hostile conduct, rather than through legitimate dispute-resolution methods pursued only when legitimately necessary, is destructive to the consensus process and is not acceptable. See also Wikipedia is not a battleground. -2014-04
Wikipedia is a reference work, not a battleground. Each and every user is expected to interact with others civilly, calmly, and in a spirit of cooperation. Borderline personal attacks and edit-warring are incompatible with this spirit. Use of the site to pursue feuds and quarrels is extremely disruptive, flies directly in the face of our key policies and goals, and is prohibited. Editors who are unable to resolve their personal or ideological differences are expected to keep mutual contact to a minimum. If battling editors fail to disengage, they may be compelled to do so through the imposition of restrictions. -2022-08, 2023-05
Battlegrounds and bad blood
Wikipedia is not a battleground. Consequently, it is a not a venue for the furtherance of grudges and personal disputes. A history of bad blood, poor interactions and heated altercations between users can complicate attempts to reach consensus. Inflammatory accusations perpetuate disputes, poison the well of existing discussions, and disrupt the editing atmosphere. Private e-mail exchanges or other off-wiki contact can both escalate and de-escalate such conflicts. -2013-11
Behavior during arbitration cases
The pages associated with arbitration cases are primarily intended to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at a fair, well-informed, and expeditious resolution of each case. Editors are expected to conduct themselves with appropriate decorum during arbitration cases. While grievances must often be aired during such a case, it is expected that editors will do so without being unnecessarily rude or hostile, and will respond calmly to allegations against them. Accusations of misbehavior must be backed with clear evidence or not made at all. Editors who conduct themselves inappropriately during a case may be sanctioned by arbitrators or clerks including by warnings, blocks, or bans from further participation in the case. Behavior during a case may be considered as part of an editor's overall conduct in the matter at hand. -2014-04
Behavioral standards
Wikipedia editors are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other editors; to approach even difficult situations in a dignified fashion and with a constructive and collaborative outlook; and to avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, harassment, disruptive point-making, and gaming the system, is prohibited. -2015-06, 2019-07
Behavioural standards
Wikipedia editors are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other editors; to approach even difficult situations in a dignified fashion and with a constructive and collaborative outlook; and to avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, harassment, disruptive point-making, and gaming the system, is prohibited. -2014-07
Being right isn't enough
Violations of Wikipedia's behavioral expectations are not excused on the grounds that the editor who violated those expectations has the correct position on an underlying substantive dispute or the interpretation of policies and guidelines within those disputes. Those expectations apply universally to all editors, and violations of those expectations are harmful to the functioning of the project, irrespective of the merits of an underlying substantive dispute. -2023-08, 2023-12
Bias and prejudice
An editor must not engage in a pattern of editing that focuses on a specific racial, religious, or ethnic group and can reasonably be perceived as insinuating, endorsing or promoting bias and prejudice either against or for the members, beliefs or tenets of the group. -2011-09
An editor must not engage in a pattern of editing that focuses on a specific racial, religious, or ethnic group and can reasonably be perceived as gratuitously endorsing or promoting stereotypes, or as evincing invidious bias and prejudice against the members of the group. -2011-04
Biographical content
The Biographies of living persons ("BLP") policy applies not only to biographical articles but to all edits about living people in all pages within the encyclopedia. All such edits must be written conservatively, responsibly, cautiously, and in a dispassionate and neutral tone. Edits should be backed by reliable sources, avoiding self-published material. Poorly sourced or unsourced controversial material must be removed immediately, and may not be reinserted without appropriate sourcing. Biographical articles should not be used as coatracks to describe events or circumstances in which the subject is peripherally or slightly involved, nor to give undue weight to events or circumstances relevant to the subject. The policy permits "some leeway ... to allow the handling of administrative issues by the community", though administrators may delete defamatory material or personal attacks. Failure to adhere to the BLP policy may result in deletion of material, editing restrictions, blocks or even bans. -2015-01
Biographies of deceased persons
While biographies of deceased individuals are not (with the possible exception of persons who died very recently) directly subject to the biographies of living persons policy, such articles still must be written from a neutral point of view and may not be edited for the purpose of gratuitously mocking or disparaging the article subject without an encyclopedic purpose. The same applies on these articles' talkpages. -2014-04
Biographies of living people
Biographies of living people must be written conservatively, responsibly, cautiously, and in a dispassionate and neutral tone, avoiding both understatement and overstatement. They should be written using reliable sources, avoiding self-published sources. Poorly sourced or unsourced controversial material should be removed immediately, and should not be reinserted without appropriate sourcing. Biographical articles should not be used as coatracks to describe events or circumstances in which the subject is peripherally or slightly involved, nor to give undue weight to events or circumstances to matters relevant to the subject. Failure to adhere to the policy on biographical information of living people may result in deletion of material, editing restrictions, blocks or even bans. -2010-10
It is a core policy of the encyclopedia that Biographies of living persons (BLPs) must be written conservatively, with a high regard for accuracy and neutrality, using only high quality sources. BLP articles may never be used as a vehicle for aggrandising or diminishing the subject. -2011-09
Articles relating to living individuals continue to be among the most sensitive content on Wikipedia. As the English Wikipedia remains one of the most prominent and visited websites in the world, a Wikipedia article about an individual will often be among the highest-ranking results in any search for information about that individual. The contents of these articles may directly affect their subjects' lives, reputations, and well-being. Therefore, while all Wikipedia articles should be factually accurate, be based upon reliable sources, and be written from a neutral point of view, it is especially important that content relating to living people adheres to these standards. -2014-04
Biographies of living persons
Articles relating to living individuals continue to be among the most sensitive content on Wikipedia. As the English Wikipedia remains one of the most prominent and visited websites in the world, a Wikipedia article mentioning an individual will often be among the highest-ranking results in any search for information about that individual. The contents of these articles may directly affect their subjects' lives, reputations, and well-being. Therefore, while all Wikipedia articles should be factually accurate, be based upon reliable sources, and be written from a neutral point of view, it is especially important that content relating to living persons must adhere to these standards. Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (the "BLP policy") is a fundamental policy that enforces these precepts by requiring, among other things, that articles containing biographical information must be kept free of unsourced negative or controversial content, unsupported rumors and gossip, defamatory material, undue weight given to minor incidents or to matters irrelevant to the subject's notability, and unwarranted violations of personal privacy. There is widespread agreement in the Wikipedia community regarding the importance of the BLP policy, which was adopted and since its inception has repeatedly been strengthened by the community. In addition, this Committee has reaffirmed the values expressed through the BLP policy in a series of decisions and motions, and fundamental norms concerning biographical articles have been emphasized in a resolution of the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees. -2012-07
Articles relating to living individuals continue to be among the most sensitive content on Wikipedia. As the English Wikipedia remains one of the most prominent and visited websites in the world, a Wikipedia article about an individual will often be among the highest-ranking results in any search for information about that individual. The contents of these articles may directly affect their subjects' lives, reputations, and well-being. Therefore, while all Wikipedia articles should be factually accurate, be based upon reliable sources, and be written from a neutral point of view, it is especially important that content relating to living persons must adhere to these standards. -2011-09, 2014-04
Wikipedia articles that present material about living people can affect their subjects' lives. Biographical material must be written with the greatest care and attention to verifiability, neutrality and avoiding original research, particularly if it is contentious. -2018-07
Wikipedia articles that present material about living people can affect their subjects' lives. Wikipedia editors who deal with these articles have a responsibility to consider the legal and ethical implications of their actions when doing so. Adding unreliable, unsourced, or unduly weighted negative material or vandalising these pages displays particularly poor conduct. -2009-10
Blocking
Blocking is a serious matter. Administrators should be exceedingly careful when blocking, and only do so when no other alternative would prove as effective. When placed, blocks should be intended to prevent disruption to the project and not simply to punish a user for their (mis)conduct. -2012-02
Blocking and Banning
The purpose of blocking accounts and banning editors is to address the disruptive or otherwise inappropriate behaviour of the specific editor, not to silence a perspective. Without additional supportive evidence (such as identical wording as used by a banned editor), editors new to a topic who seek to include information proposed in the past by a now-blocked or -banned editor should be treated with good faith. An editor who brings forward the same or similar view as a blocked or banned user should not automatically be assumed to be a sockpuppet or meatpuppet in the absence of other evidence. -2010-10
Blocks
Blocking is the method by which administrators technically prevent users from editing Wikipedia. Blocks serve to protect the project from harm, and reduce likely future problems. They are meted out not as retribution but to protect the project and other users from disruption and inappropriate conduct, and to deter any future possible repetitions of inappropriate conduct.While warnings are not a necessary prerequisite for blocking, before a block is imposed, efforts should be made to educate users about Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and to warn them when their behavior conflicts with these. -2014-12
Bludgeoning
In formal discussions, less is usually more. Editors who choose to ignore this advice by replying to a large number of comments can bludgeon the discussion. Bludgeoning exhausts other editors, dissuades further participation, wastes time, and makes discussions less effective. Editors should avoid repeating the same point or making so many comments that they dominate the discussion. Editors should particularly avoid trying to convince specific other people that they are right and the other person is wrong, and should instead focus on presenting their own ideas as clearly and concisely as possible. -2022-08
Bot policy
According to the bot policy, approved bots should:
- be harmless
- be useful
- not consume resources unnecessarily
- perform only tasks for which there is consensus
- carefully adhere to relevant policies and guidelines
- use informative messages, appropriately worded, in any edit summaries or messages left for users. -2017-03
Bot-like editing
For the purpose of dispute resolution, it is irrelevant whether high-speed or large-scale edits that involve errors an attentive human would not make are actually being performed by a bot, by a human assisted by a script, or even by a human without any programmatic assistance. No matter the method, the disruptive editing must stop or the user may be sanctioned. However, merely editing quickly, particularly for a short time, is not by itself disruptive. -2017-09
Building consensus
Wikipedia relies on a consensus model. Finding common ground is essential when editors disagree, and editors should be willing and able to actively do so. Editors' participation in discussions should not simply be reiterating their own positions. Editors' own positions should be represented concisely to allow room in the discussion for consensus to develop. -2023-12
Building consensus: WikiProjects
WikiProjects have no special status in developing consensus on matters of content, policy or procedures. Any Wikipedia editor may participate in developing a consensus on any matter that interests them. -2014-01, 2022-04
Business articles
Where a dispute exists at an article between editors who are or were customers of a business (that is described by that article), and editors are unable to edit in an unbiased manner due to their prior experiences of the products and services of that business, then attempts should be made to obtain third party opinions, and to encourage editing of the article by editors with no prior knowledge of the company or the disputes. -2009-09
Canvassing
Excessive cross-posting, campaigning, votestacking, stealth canvassing, and forum shopping are inappropriate forms of canvassing. Signs of biased canvassing include urging new editors to take a specific position in a conflict and only contacting one side of a dispute. To protect against rigged decisions, editors participating due to questionable canvassing may be discounted when evaluating consensus. -2009-06
While it is acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, messages that are written to influence the outcome rather than to improve the quality of a discussion may be considered disruptive. In particular, messages to fora mostly populated by a biased or partisan audience — especially when not public — are considered canvassing and disrupt the consensus building process by making participation lopsided. -2009-12
While it is acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, messages that are written to influence the outcome rather than to improve the quality of a discussion may be considered disruptive. -2015-12
Casting aspersions
It is unacceptable for an editor to repeatedly make false or unsupported accusations against others. Concerns, if they cannot be resolved directly with the other users concerned, should be brought up in the appropriate forums with evidence, if at all. -2010-03
It is unacceptable for an editor to routinely accuse others of misbehavior without reasonable cause in an attempt to besmirch their reputations. Concerns, if they cannot be resolved directly with the other users involved, should be brought up in the appropriate forums with evidence, if at all. -2010-10
It is unacceptable for an editor to continually accuse another of egregious misbehavior in an attempt to besmirch their reputation. Concerns should be brought up in the appropriate forums with evidence, if at all. -2013-06, 2015-07
Editors must not accuse others of misconduct without evidence, especially when the accusations are repeated or severe. If accusations must be made, they should be raised, with evidence, on the user-talk page of the editor they concern or in the appropriate forums. -2015-12
It is unacceptable for an editor to routinely accuse others of misbehavior without reasonable cause. Legitimate concerns of fellow editors' conduct should be raised either directly with the editor in question, in a civil fashion, or if necessary on an appropriate noticeboard or dispute-resolution page. Although broad leeway is granted to allow editors to express themselves in their interactions with one another, particularly in dispute resolution, a consistent pattern of making objectively unsupported or exaggerated claims of misconduct can necessitate sanctions or restrictions even if the editor subjectively believes that they are true. -2009-07
It is unacceptable for an editor to continually accuse others of egregious misbehavior in an attempt to besmirch their reputation. Concerns, if they cannot be resolved directly with the other users concerned, should be brought up in the appropriate forums with evidence, if at all. -2009-12
An editor must not accuse another of misbehavior without evidence, especially when the accusations are repeated or severe. If accusations must be made, they should be raised, with evidence, on the user-talk page of the editor they concern or in the appropriate forums. -2013-08, 2013-10
An editor should not make accusations, such as that another group of editors is biased or habitually violate site policies or norms, without evidence. A persistent pattern of false or unsupported accusations is particularly damaging to the collaborative editing environment. Significant concerns, if they cannot be resolved directly with the other users concerned, should be addressed through the appropriate dispute resolution procedures. -2013-12, 2023-12
An editor must not accuse another of misbehavior without evidence, especially when the accusations are repeated or severe. This especially applies to accusations of being paid by a company to promote a point of view (i.e., a shill) or similar associations and using that to attack or cast doubt over the editor in content disputes. If accusations must be made, they should be raised, with evidence, at appropriate forums such as the user talk page, WP:COIN, or other appropriate places per WP:COI. Editors are however reminded that Wikipedia places importance on the ability of editors to edit pseudonymously. When investigating COI editing, the policy against harassment takes precedence; it requires that Wikipedians must take care not to reveal the identity of editors against their wishes. Instead, examine editors' behavior and refer to Wikipedia:Checkuser. -2015-12
Check before reverting
In the spirit of building the encyclopedia we aim to preserve facts or ideas that belong in an encyclopedia and are verifiable, and encourage editors to find sources when required. When faced with potential multiple unhelpful edits, the onus is on the reverter to assume good faith and check if the edits are actually unhelpful before reverting. -2019-02
CheckUser and Oversight permissions
The Arbitration Committee has the primary responsibility for approving and removing access to the CheckUser and Oversight tools on the English Wikipedia. See Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy. –2022-11
Checkuser blocks
The Checkuser tool allows its users to determine from Wikipedia's servers the IP addresses used by a Wikipedia user account, as well as other technical data stored by the server about a user account or IP address. Access to this tool is restricted to members of the checkuser group. It is sometimes necessary to block editors based on evidence obtained using the Checkuser tool. Such a block should be designated by the blocking checkuser as a "checkuser block." Blocks not based on checkuser evidence are not to be labeled as checkuser blocks, even if the blocking administrator is a checkuser. Accordingly, administrators who do not have access to checkuser data must not reverse blocks labelled as checkuser blocks without having first consulted the checkuser team or the Arbitration Committee. -2020-02
Civility
Editors are expected to show reasonable courtesy to one another, even during contentious situations and disagreements. See Wikipedia:Civility and Wikipedia:No personal attacks. -2019-09
Civility is one of the five pillars. Editors are expected to be reasonably cooperative, to refrain from making personal attacks, to work within the scope of policies, and to be responsive to good-faith questions. Fellow editors should be treated as respected colleagues who are collaborating on an important project. New users who contribute constructively should be welcomed and treated with patience, but non-constructive newcomers should be politely discouraged or, where appropriate, counseled as to how to make more constructive contributions. -2020-04
Editors are expected to show reasonable courtesy to one another, even during contentious situations and disagreements, and not resort to personal attacks. -2021-02
Editors are expected to show reasonable courtesy to one another, even during contentious situations and disagreements, and not resort to personal attacks. -2021-09
Civility blocks
The civility policy permits blocking for "major" incivility, which includes incivility rising to the level of disruption, personal attacks, harassment, or outing. -2012-02
Clarity of consensus
Consensus is Wikipedia's fundamental model for editorial decision-making. In most cases, consensus is an implicit process, where undisputed edits—either in article or project space—are assumed to have consensus. In cases where consensus is unclear, extra care must be taken to avoid stirring up unnecessary conflict. From both a broad behavioral and content standpoint, there exist situations on Wikipedia where it preferable to be cautious and seek consensus prior to an edit instead of editing boldly as is common in uncontroversial areas of the project. -2020-06
Collective behavior of blocs of editors
It is potentially harmful to Wikipedia when editorial debates become strongly associated with real-world polarizations and when they become dominated by groups of editors lined up along philosophical lines due to shared beliefs or personal backgrounds. This is particularly harmful when such editors act in concert to systematically advocate editorial decisions considered favorable to their shared views in a manner that contravenes the application of Wikipedia policy or obstructs consensus-building. Defending editorial positions that support philosophical preferences typical of a particular group is not ipso facto evidence of bad-faith editing. At the same time, mere strength of numbers is not sufficient to contravene Wikipedia policy, and an apparent consensus of editors is not sufficient to overrule the five pillars of Wikipedia. -2010-10
Collegiality
Wikipedia is a serious educational and scholarly project founded on the principles of collaboration and consensus. All participants are expected to conduct themselves according to the standards of collegiality and professionalism appropriate to such a setting.
The standards of collegiality expected of all contributors to Wikimedia projects are set forth in the Wikimedia Foundation Resolution on Openness, which urges editors to "promote openness and collaboration", "treat new editors with patience, kindness, and respect", "work with colleagues to reduce contention and promote a friendlier, more collaborative culture", and "work with colleagues to [...] discourage disruptive and hostile behavior".
The Wikipedia community has outlined similar standards in the "fourth pillar" of community policy, which asks that editors "interact with each other in a respectful and civil manner", "be polite to [...] fellow Wikipedians, even when you disagree", and "be open and welcoming". -2011-09
Wikipedia is a serious educational and scholarly project founded on the principles of collaboration and consensus. All participants are expected to conduct themselves according to the standards of collegiality and professionalism appropriate to such a setting.
The standards of collegiality expected of all contributors to Wikimedia projects are set forth in the Wikimedia Foundation Resolution on Openness, which urges editors to "promote openness and collaboration", "treat new editors with patience, kindness, and respect", "work with colleagues to reduce contention and promote a friendlier, more collaborative culture", and "work with colleagues to [...] discourage disruptive and hostile behavior".
The Wikipedia community has outlined similar standards in the "fourth pillar" of community policy, which asks that editors "interact with each other in a respectful and civil manner", "be polite to [...] fellow Wikipedians, even when you disagree", and "be open and welcoming". -2011-08
Wikipedia is a project founded on the principles of collaboration and consensus. Even when an editor holds a reasonable belief that an edit or set of edits has consensus, it is collegial to pause when presented with reasonable objections, to take critical feedback into consideration, and to make reasonable efforts to avoid repeatedly making the same mistake. This behavior is particularly important when editing at high volume, whether in an automated or semi-automated fashion. Likewise, in a large collaborative project it is inevitable that some types of edits that irritate or inconvenience some editors will nevertheless gain consensus; it is collegial to accept this inevitability and avoid repeatedly making the same objections. -2017-03
Collegiality and prohibited conduct
Wikipedia's core behavioral policies outline certain minimal standards for acceptable user conduct by explicitly prohibiting a number of disruptive activities, such as personal attacks and edit-warring. The expectation of collegiality among participants goes beyond compliance with these minimal standards. The fact that a particular activity or attitude is not explicitly prohibited does not make it appropriate in a collaborative environment or conducive to maintaining a welcoming atmosphere. -2011-08
Collegiality and recidivism
Editors are human. They will sometimes make mistakes and suffer occasional lapses of judgment. However, editing in a collaborative project comes with the high expectation that they will do their utmost to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with others. Accordingly, inappropriate conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, trolling, harassment, disruptive point-making, and gaming the system, is prohibited, as is the use of the site to pursue feuds and quarrels.Editors who repeatedly or seriously violate these basic standards of conduct may be sanctioned. Editors who have already been sanctioned may be sanctioned more harshly for repeated violations. -2015-07
Comment on the edits, not the editor
Editors are expected to comment on the substance of other's edits, and not attempt to use editors' affiliations in an ad hominem method to attempt to discredit their views. Attempts to do so may be considered a Personal Attack. -2012-07
Editors are expected to comment on the substance of others' edits. Attempts to discredit people's views based on personal traits such as race, creed, nationality or sexual preference are in most cases Personal Attacks. Accusations of bias in article text can be resolved through normal editing procedures, however editors should not lightly accuse other editors of bias. Such accusations, if not backed up with evidence of such bias, could be considered a personal attack. -2012-07
Editors are expected to comment on the substance of others' edits, and not attempt to use editors' affiliations in an ad hominem method to attempt to discredit their views. Attempts to do so may be considered a personal attack. -2015-07
Committee action as it relates to its members
The Arbitration Committee is responsible for investigating the conduct of its members when serious concerns are raised about their ability to meet defined expectations. However, arbitrators who behave poorly while engaging in routine editing or administrative tasks unrelated to their arbitration duties should be treated like any other community member. It is not necessary to escalate routine disputes to the Committee simply because an arbitrator's conduct is involved. -2016-06
Common sense in enforcement
In enforcing arbitration decisions, administrators are expected to use their common sense. Except for the cases when the Arbitration Committee has predetermined the set of escalating sanctions to be imposed for violations of a final decision, the severity of the sanction imposed should be commensurate with all circumstances of the case at hand, including the seriousness of the violation and the possible recidivism of the editor in question. Administrators may also close a report with no action when no actual violation occurred or the consensus of uninvolved administrators is that exceptional circumstances are present, which would make the imposition of a sanction inappropriate; in these cases, they may also warn or advise the editor being reported, in order to avoid further breaches.Administrators wishing to dismiss an enforcement request are reminded that they should act cautiously and be especially mindful that their actions do not give the impression that they are second-guessing the Arbitration Committee or obstructing the enforcement of their decisions. Administrators are also reminded they are still expected to comply with the expectations set out in Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions#Expectations of administrators. Violating these expectations may lead to sanctions. -2015-08
Communication
Due to the collaborative nature of Wikipedia, proper communication is extremely important. All editors are expected to respond to messages intended for them in a timely manner and to constructively discuss controversial issues. This is especially true for administrators in regard to administrative actions. Such expected communication includes: giving appropriate (as guided by Wikipedia's policies and guidelines) warnings prior to, and notification messages following, their actions; using accurate and descriptive edit and administrative action summaries; and responding promptly and fully to all good-faith concerns raised about their administrative actions. -2019-05
Editors should use their best efforts to communicate with one another, particularly when disputes arise. When an editor's input is consistently unclear or difficult to follow, the merits of his or her position may not be fully understood by those reading the communication. An editor's failure to communicate concerns with sufficient clarity, conciseness and succinctness, or with insufficient attention to detail, or failure to focus on the topic being discussed, can impede both collaborative editing and dispute resolution. Editors should recognise when this is the case and take steps to address the problems, either on their own or, where necessary, by seeking assistance. -2016-10
Editors should use their best efforts to communicate with one another, particularly when disputes arise. When an editor's input is consistently unclear or difficult to follow, the merits of his or her position may not be fully understood by those reading the communication. An editor's failure to respond to concerns with sufficient clarity, conciseness and detail, or failure to focus on the topic being discussed, can impede both collaborative editing and dispute resolution. It is a condition of operating a bot that the operator communicates cordially, promptly, and appropriately. -2017-09
Community handling of administrator misconduct
Although the Arbitration Committee is the only body capable of removing administrator permissions, the community retains the authority to use measures for addressing misconduct of administrators, including admonishments and reminders as well as topic bans, interaction bans, and other restrictions. Accordingly, discussions about improper conduct by an administrator should not be preemptively or prematurely closed in favor of Arbitration if a less severe sanction than removal of administrator permissions is a plausible outcome of the discussion. –2021-03
Community sanctions
The community has the authority to impose sanctions (such as editing restrictions or bans) on any user whose edits are a detriment to the encyclopedia. -2012-02
Conduct and decorum
Wikipedia editors are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other editors; to approach even difficult situations in a dignified fashion and with a constructive and collaborative outlook; and to avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, harassment, disruptive point-making, and gaming the system, is prohibited. -2011-11, 2012-02
All editors are expected to adhere to Wikipedia's code of conduct. Editors are expected to behave reasonably and calmly in their interactions with other users, to keep their cool when editing, and to avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. Unseemly or uncollaborative conduct, such as personal attacks, disrespect toward other editors, uncivil commments, harassment, unjustified failure to assume good faith, using Wikipedia as a battleground, or comments containing unnecessary ethnic or national references concerning editors, all are inconsistent with Wikipedia etiquette. Users should not respond to such behavior in kind; concerns regarding the actions of another editor, if they cannot be resolved directly with the editors, should be addressed in the appropriate forums. -2010-05
Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users; to approach even difficult situations in a dignified fashion and with a constructive and collaborative outlook; and to avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, trolling, harassment, disruptive point-making, and gaming the system, is prohibited. -2011-02
Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users, and to approach even difficult situations in a dignified fashion and with a constructive and collaborative outlook. Editors are expected to be reasonably courteous to one another, even during disputes. Unseemly or confrontational conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, and unwarranted assumptions of bad faith, is prohibited. -2011-03
Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users, and to approach even difficult situations in a dignified fashion and with a constructive and collaborative outlook. Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, and unwarranted assumptions of bad faith, is prohibited. -2011-04
Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users, and to approach even difficult situations in a dignified fashion and with a constructive and collaborative outlook. -2013-12
Conduct during arbitration cases
Policy states: "Editors are expected to conduct themselves with appropriate decorum during arbitration cases, and may face sanctions if they fail to do so". The pages associated with arbitration cases are primarily intended to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at a fair, well-informed, and expeditious resolution of each case. While grievances must often be aired during such a case, it is expected that editors will do so without being unnecessarily rude or hostile, and will respond calmly to allegations against them. Accusations of misbehaviour must be backed with clear evidence or not made at all. Editors who conduct themselves inappropriately during a case may be sanctioned by arbitrators or clerks including by warnings, blocks, or bans from further participation in the case. Behaviour during a case may be considered as part of an editor's overall conduct in the matter at hand. -2015-01
Policy states: "Editors are expected to conduct themselves with appropriate decorum during arbitration cases, and may face sanctions if they fail to do so". The pages associated with arbitration cases are primarily intended to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at a fair, well-informed, and expeditious resolution of each case. While grievances must often be aired during such a case, it is expected that editors will do so without being unnecessarily rude or hostile, and will respond calmly to allegations against them. Accusations of misbehavior must be backed with clear evidence or not made at all. Editors who conduct themselves inappropriately during a case may be sanctioned by arbitrators or clerks including by warnings, blocks, or bans from further participation in the case. Behavior during a case may be considered as part of an editor's overall conduct in the matter at hand. -2014-04
The arbitration policy states that "Editors are expected to conduct themselves with appropriate decorum during arbitration cases, and may face sanctions if they fail to do so". The pages associated with arbitration cases are primarily intended to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at a fair, well-informed, and expeditious resolution of each case. While grievances must often be aired during such a case, it is expected that editors will do so without being unnecessarily rude or hostile, and will respond calmly to allegations against them. Accusations of misbehaviour must be backed with clear evidence or not made at all. Editors who conduct themselves inappropriately during a case may be sanctioned by arbitrators or clerks including by warnings, blocks, or bans from further participation in the case. Behaviour during a case may be considered as part of an editor's overall conduct in the matter at hand. -2021-02
Policy states: "Editors are expected to conduct themselves with appropriate decorum during arbitration cases, and may face sanctions if they fail to do so". The pages associated with arbitration cases are primarily intended to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at a fair, well-informed, and expeditious resolution of each case. While grievances must often be aired during such a case, it is expected that editors will do so without being unnecessarily rude or hostile, and will respond calmly to allegations against them. Accusations of misbehaviour must be backed with clear evidence or not made at all. Behaviour during a case may be considered as part of an editor's overall conduct in the matter at hand. –2023-07
Conduct of Wikipedia users
All Wikipedia editors, regardless of the length of their service or any positions they may hold, are expected to abide by at least our basic standards for user conduct. Administrators are expected to adhere, at a minimum, to at least the same standards of behavior that they are responsible for enforcing. In the same vein, editors who see part of their role here as making constructive criticism of other users must strive to live up to the same standards to which they would hold others. Double standards, actual or perceived, can be seriously demoralizing. -2012-07
Conduct of administrators
Administrators are trusted members of the community who are expected to follow Wikipedia policies and to perform their duties to the best of their abilities. Occasional mistakes are entirely compatible with adminship, as administrators are not expected to be perfect, but consistently or egregiously poor judgment may result in the removal of administrator status. -2011-08
Conduct of administrators and bureaucrats
Administrators and bureaucrats are trusted members of the community and are expected to follow Wikipedia policies. Their conduct is held to a high standard as a result of this trust. Occasional mistakes are entirely compatible with this and they are not expected to be perfect. However, consistently or egregiously poor judgement may result in the removal of adminship and/or bureaucratship. -2024-04
Conduct on Arbitration pages
The pages associated with arbitration cases are primarily intended to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at a fair, well-informed, and expeditious resolution of each case. Participation by editors who present good-faith statements, evidence, and workshop proposals is appreciated. While allowance is made for the fact that parties and other interested editors may have strong feelings about the subject-matters of their dispute, appropriate decorum should be maintained on these pages. Incivility, personal attacks, and strident rhetoric should be avoided in arbitration as in all other areas of Wikipedia. -2016-10, 2017-10
Conduct on arbitration cases
Policy states: "Editors are expected to conduct themselves with appropriate decorum during arbitration cases, and may face sanctions if they fail to do so". The pages associated with arbitration cases are primarily intended to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at a fair, well-informed, and expeditious resolution of each case. While grievances must often be aired during such a case, it is expected that editors will do so without being unnecessarily rude or hostile, and will respond calmly to allegations against them. Accusations of misbehaviour must be backed with clear evidence or not made at all. Editors who conduct themselves inappropriately during a case may be sanctioned by arbitrators or clerks including by warnings, blocks, or bans from further participation in the case. Behaviour during a case may be considered as part of an editor's overall conduct in the matter at hand. -2015-12
Conduct on arbitration pages
The pages associated with arbitration cases are primarily intended to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at a fair, well-informed, and expeditious resolution of each case. Participation by editors who present good-faith statements, evidence, and workshop proposals is appreciated. While allowance is made for the fact that parties and other interested editors may have strong feelings about the subject-matters of their dispute, appropriate decorum should be maintained on these pages. Incivility, personal attacks, and strident rhetoric should be avoided in arbitration as in all other areas of Wikipedia. -2009-09, 2010-10, 2013-10, 2013-11, 2016-06
The pages associated with Arbitration cases are primarily intended to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at a fair, well-informed, and expeditious resolution of each case. Participation by editors who present good-faith statements, evidence, and workshop proposals is appreciated. While allowance is made for the fact that parties and other interested editors may have strong feelings about the subject-matters of their dispute, appropriate decorum should be maintained on these pages. Incivility, personal attacks, and strident rhetoric should be avoided in Arbitration as in all other areas of Wikipedia. -2013-08
Policy states: "Editors are expected to conduct themselves with appropriate decorum during arbitration cases, and may face sanctions if they fail to do so". The pages associated with arbitration cases are primarily intended to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at a fair, well-informed, and expeditious resolution of each case. While grievances must often be aired during such a case, it is expected that editors will do so without being unnecessarily rude or hostile, and will respond calmly to allegations against them. Accusations of misbehaviour must be backed with clear evidence or not made at all. Editors who conduct themselves inappropriately during a case may be sanctioned by arbitrators or clerks including by warnings, blocks, or bans from further participation in the case. Behaviour during a case may be considered as part of an editor's overall conduct in the matter at hand. -2015-06
[was 11] Policy states: "Editors are expected to conduct themselves with appropriate decorum during arbitration cases, and may face sanctions if they fail to do so". The pages associated with arbitration cases are primarily intended to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at a fair, well-informed, and expeditious resolution of each case. While grievances must often be aired during such a case, it is expected that editors will do so without being unnecessarily rude or hostile, and will respond calmly to allegations against them. Accusations of misbehaviour must be backed with clear evidence or not made at all. Editors who conduct themselves inappropriately during a case may be sanctioned by arbitrators or clerks including by warnings, blocks, or bans from further participation in the case. Behaviour during a case may be considered as part of an editor's overall conduct in the matter at hand. -2015-07
Conduct unbecoming an administrator
The Administrator policy states: "Administrators are expected to lead by example and to behave in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with others. [...] administrators are not expected to be perfect. However, [...] consistently or egregiously poor judgment may result in the removal of administrator status. Administrators should strive to model appropriate standards of courtesy and civility to other editors and to one another." -2013-11
Conflicts of interest
Editors with a conflict of interest are strongly discouraged from editing affected articles directly. While most conflicts of interest relate to the potential for unduly positive editing, the conflict of interest guideline also applies to conflicts that could cause unduly negative editing. Editors should avoid editing in areas where they have a negative conflict of interest, as it undermines public confidence in the project. -2018-07
An editor has a conflict of interest when their interests in editing Wikipedia conflict or potentially conflict with the interests of the Wikipedia project in producing a neutral, verifiable encyclopaedia. An editor will have a conflict of interest if, for example, they have a significant financial interest in the subject or they are involved with the subject in a significant capacity, or if the article is about them or about a business or organisation that they represent. Editors are expected to comply with both the purpose and intent of the applicable policies, as well as their literal wording. -2024-04
An editor has a conflict of interest when their interests in editing Wikipedia, or the interests of those they represent, conflict or potentially conflict with the interests of the Wikipedia project in producing a neutral, verifiable encyclopaedia. An editor will have a conflict of interest with respect to an article if, for example, they have a significant financial interest in the subject, they are involved with the subject of the article in a significant capacity, or if the article is about them or about a business or organisation that they represent. -2009-10
Editors are considered to have a conflict of interest if they contribute to Wikipedia in order to promote their own interests, or those of other individuals or groups, and if advancing those interests is more important to them than advancing the aims of Wikipedia.Editors do not have a conflict of interest merely because they have personal or professional interest or expertise in a topic, nor because they are members of or affiliated with a group of individuals with personal or professional interest or expertise in a topic. -2011-02
According to Wikipedia:Conflict of interest guideline, "a Wikipedia conflict of interest is an incompatibility between the aim of Wikipedia, which is to produce a neutral, reliably sourced encyclopedia, and the aims of an individual editor.... Where advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia, that editor stands in a conflict of interest." While editing with a conflict of interest is not prohibited, the guideline reflects best practice for editors having conflicting interests, intended to maximize the chance that all edits will reflect the required neutral point of view. Editors whose contributions are persistently or seriously non-neutral may, after appropriate warnings and guidance, be subject to editing restrictions or other appropriate sanctions; this applies whether the lack of neutrality results from a conflict of interest or not. -2011-09
Editors are considered to have a conflict of interest if they contribute to Wikipedia in order to promote their own interests, or those of other individuals or groups, and if advancing those interests is more important to them than advancing the aims of Wikipedia. Editors do not have a conflict of interest merely because they have personal or professional interest or expertise in a topic, nor because they are members of or affiliated with a group of individuals with personal or professional interest or expertise in a topic.
Editors with a conflict of interest are strongly discouraged from editing affected articles directly. While most conflicts of interest relate to the potential for unduly positive editing, the conflict of interest guideline also applies to conflicts that could cause unduly negative editing. Editors should avoid editing in areas where they have a negative conflict of interest, as it undermines public confidence in the project. -2022-03
Consensus
Wikipedia relies on consensus as its fundamental editorial process. Consensus develops from agreement of the parties involved. To ensure transparency, consensus cannot be formed except on Wikipedia discussion pages. "Off-wiki" discussions, such as those taking place on other websites, on web forums or on IRC, are not taken into account when determining consensus. -2009-12 (using a shortcut link to WP:Consensus), 2022-04
Wikipedia relies on a consensus model. When there is a good-faith dispute, editors are expected to participate in the consensus-building process, in lieu of soapboxing, edit warring, or other inappropriate behavior. Abuse of the consensus model and process, such as misrepresenting consensus or poisoning the well, is disruptive. Specific forums, such as Articles for deletion for deletion discussions and the Reliable sources noticeboard for source-reliability discussions, have been created to seek and where possible attain consensus on specific types of content disagreements. -2010-02
Wikipedia works by building consensus through the use of polite discussion—involving the wider community, if necessary—and dispute resolution, rather than through disruptive editing. Editors are each responsible for noticing when a debate is escalating into an edit war, and for helping the debate move to better approaches by discussing their differences rationally. This applies to any and all pages on Wikipedia, from articles to templates to project space. -2011-11
Disagreements concerning article content are to be resolved by seeking to build consensus through the use of polite discussion – involving the wider community, if necessary. The dispute resolution process is designed to assist consensus-building when normal talk page communication has not worked. When there is a good-faith dispute, editors are expected to participate in the consensus-building process and to carefully consider other editors' views, rather than simply edit-warring back-and-forth between competing versions. Sustained editorial conflict is not an appropriate method of resolving content disputes. -2014-07, 2015-06, 2019-07, 2020-03
Disagreements concerning article content are to be resolved by seeking to build consensus through the use of polite discussion. The dispute resolution process is designed to assist consensus-building when normal talk page communication has not worked. When there is a good-faith dispute, editors are expected to participate in the consensus-building process and to carefully consider other editors' views, rather than simply edit-warring back-and-forth to competing versions. Sustained editorial conflict is not an appropriate method of resolving content disputes. -2010-05
As reflected in the policy page Wikipedia:Consensus, determining when consensus has been reached is not always an exact science. Editors should endeavor in good faith to work toward consensus when content disputes arise. Editors are not, in striving for consensus, required to abandon their beliefs about historical or other facts, or to simulate agreement with article content with which they continue to disagree; advocating forcefully, but civilly, for one's view is part of the process that has built some of our strongest articles. However, there comes a point when the existence of consensus becomes clear, so that disagreeing editors must accept that consensus is against them and cease editing against it, at least for a reasonable period of time. -2011-04
Wikipedia works by building consensus through the use of dispute resolution and polite discussion, with a shared receptiveness to compromise—and involving the wider community, if necessary. Individual editors have a responsibility to help debate succeed and move forward by discussing their differences rationally. This applies to all pages on Wikipedia, but especially to articles and article discussion pages. -2012-02
Wikipedia works by building consensus through the use of dispute resolution and polite discussion, with a shared receptiveness to compromise—and involving the wider community, if necessary. Individual editors have a responsibility to help debate succeed and move forward by discussing their differences rationally. Editors must accept any reasonable decision arrived at by consensus, on all pages on Wikipedia but especially in relation to articles and article discussion pages. -2012-06
Wikipedia works by building consensus through the use of polite discussion. The dispute resolution process is designed to assist consensus-building when normal talk page communication has not worked. Sustained editorial conflict is not an appropriate method of resolving disputes. -2013-09
In resolving disagreements, editors have a responsibility to help debate succeed and move forward by discussing their differences rationally, and being willing to compromise where appropriate. Editors must accept any reasonable decision arrived at by consensus, on all pages on Wikipedia but especially in relation to articles and article discussion pages. -2013-12
Wikipedia relies on a consensus model. When there is a good-faith dispute, editors are expected to participate in the consensus-building process in lieu of soapboxing, edit warring, or other inappropriate behavior. Abuse of the consensus model and process, such as misrepresenting consensus or poisoning the well, is disruptive. -2015-06
Wikipedia works by building consensus through the use of dispute resolution and polite discussion, with a shared receptiveness to compromise. This may involve the wider community, if necessary, through dispute resolution mechanisms like noticeboards and Requests for Comment. Individual editors have a responsibility to help debate succeed and move forward by discussing their differences rationally and by respecting the outcomes of reached after dispute resolution. -2021-09
Consensus is Wikipedia's fundamental model for editorial decision-making. In most cases, consensus is an implicit process, where undisputed edits—either in article or project space—are assumed to have consensus. In cases where consensus is unclear, extra care must be taken to avoid stirring up unnecessary conflict. From both a broad behavioral and content standpoint, there exist situations on Wikipedia where it preferable to be cautious and seek consensus prior to an edit instead of editing boldly as is common in uncontroversial areas of the project. -2022-08
Consensus building
Disagreements concerning article content are to be resolved by seeking to build consensus through the use of polite discussion, involving the wider community if necessary. The dispute resolution process is designed to assist consensus-building when normal talk page communication has not worked. When there is a good-faith dispute, editors are expected to participate in the consensus-building process and to carefully consider other editors' views, rather than simply edit-warring back-and-forth to competing versions. Sustained editorial conflict is not an appropriate method of resolving content disputes. -2013-06
Wikipedia works by building consensus. This is done through the use of polite discussion involving the wider community, if necessary, and dispute resolution, rather than through disruptive editing. Editors are each responsible for noticing when a debate is escalating into an edit war, and for helping the debate move to better approaches by discussing their differences rationally. Edit-warring, whether by reversion or otherwise, is prohibited; this is so even when the disputed content was originally added by a banned user if an editor in good standing has assumed ownership of the material. Revert rules should not be construed as an entitlement or inalienable right to revert, nor do they endorse reverts as an editing technique. -2014-10
Consensus can change
Consensus is not immutable. It is reasonable, and sometimes necessary, for both individual editors and particularly the community as a whole to change its mind. Long-held consensus cannot be used as an excuse against a change that follows Wikipedia's policies. However, the idea that consensus can change does not allow for the same point being brought up repeatedly over a short period of time and/or in multiple venues in an attempt to shift consensus. -2018-03
Consensus is not immutable. It is reasonable, and sometimes necessary, for both individual editors and particularly the community as a whole to change its mind. Long-held consensus cannot be used as an excuse against a change that follows Wikipedia's policies. However, the idea that consensus can change does not allow for the same point being brought up repeatedly over the course of months or years in an attempt to shift consensus. -2020-01
"Cosmetic" or inconsequential edits
According to the bot policy, "Cosmetic changes (such as many of the AWB general fixes) should be applied only when there is a substantive change to make at the same time." According to the AWB Rules of Use, AWB users are instructed not to "make insignificant or inconsequential edits", defined as "An edit that has no noticeable effect on the rendered page is generally considered an insignificant edit. If in doubt, or if other editors object to edits on the basis of this rule, seek consensus at an appropriate venue before making further similar edits." -2017-03
Consensus in internal processes
Processes internal to the functioning of the Wikipedia project also rely on consensus. Given the more decisive nature of the discussions, and the greater likelihood of harm, it is important that discussion leading to a decision be as representative as possible. In particular, discussion on the deletion boards, arbitration enforcement, and noticeboards are especially vulnerable to biased or partisan participation. -2009-12
Consideration of evidence
When deciding what evidence to consider, the severity of the behavior is an important factor. If evidence is old or, in this exceptional case, not allowed to be examined in its entirety or discussed with the accused party, it should be considered only if it demonstrates severe abusive behavior. Conversely, if the behavior in question is not severe abusive behavior, evidence from long ago should be disregarded or given lesser weight unless it is as background to a pattern of misbehavior that has continued recently, and evidence that cannot be examined in full or shared with the accused party should be disregarded. -2019-09
Consideration of private communications as evidence
The Arbitration Committee is sensitive to the serious concerns created when communications originally meant to be kept private are brought to its attention. Such concerns exist for ethical and privacy reasons, and also for practical ones, such as how to ensure that an alleged communication is authentic, complete, and presented in its full context. -2009-12
As more persons become parties to a communication, for example, a limited-distribution mailing list, the line between a purely private communication and a semi-public one may become less clear. At the same time, the number of members of a mailing list may make it difficult to determine, at a later time, whether a disclosure of information on the list has been made by a member of the list for an appropriate reason, by a member of the list for an inappropriate reason, or by a third party who has obtained access to the list via unauthorized means. -2009-12
The Arbitration Committee generally does not encourage forwarding of private communications to it without, at a minimum, the consent of either the sender or the recipient, and in ordinary circumstances, may choose to disregard such evidence. However, the committee may consider such a communication where there is reason to believe that it relates to a situation seriously endangering the well-being of the project or the community, such as harassment of editors, attempting to drive editors from the project, coordinated manipulation of article content, or misuse of adminship or other advanced permissions. -2009-12
Where private communications may need to be considered as evidence in an arbitration matter, appropriate steps must be taken by every person connected with the case to ensure that dissemination of the communications and especially of material whose publication could cause harm, such as personal identifying information, is as limited as possible. -2009-12
The dilemmas created by presentation of the contents of an off-wiki mailing list to the Arbitration Committee are complex ones that cannot be resolved for all cases through a generic policy pronouncement. There may be circumstances where refusing to consider such evidence could be highly unfair to a party wronged by conduct on the list. We can neither announce that our doors are open to the routine forwarding of intercepted communications, nor declare that we will blind ourselves to evidence even if a threat to the well-being of the wiki or the community is disclosed. In sum, situations like these must be addressed by the committee on a case-by-case basis. We can only hope that in light of the principles set forth in this decision, and the widespread recognition that off-wiki activities such as those addressed in this decision are damaging to the project and its community, future instances in which this dilemma must be faced by ourselves and our successors will be nonexistent or rare. -2009-12
Content disputes
It is not the role of the Arbitration Committee to settle good-faith content disputes among editors. -2011-02
Contentious topics
Contentious Topic page protections are put in place to "intervene in topic areas that have proved problematic". Page protections are not typically implemented automatically in a contentious topic area. -2025-01
Correct use of sources
Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources. Primary sources are permitted if used carefully. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than to original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors. -2010-08
Cosmetic changes and AWB general fixes
Changes are typically considered substantive if they affect something visible to readers and consumers of Wikipedia in any medium (subject to certain exceptions), while changes that do not are typically considered cosmetic. Minor edits are not usually considered cosmetic but still need consensus to be done by bots. Bots should not make edits which are purely cosmetic; however, when making an approved substantive change, bots may simultaneously make edits that would otherwise be considered cosmetic. Exceptions for bots to make a purely cosmetic edit must be approved by consensus. While WP:COSMETICBOT applies only to bots, human editors may also wish to follow this guidance, especially if making such changes on large scales.
AWB general fixes (genfixes) are a package of common fixes which can be enabled in bulk in AWB by the user/bot operator. Some general fixes are substantive, while others are cosmetic. It is the responsibility of the bot operator or editor using AWB to ensure that their editing falls within policy, including the bot policy and BRFA (if applicable). -2017-09
Criticism and casting aspersions
An editor must not accuse another of inappropriate conduct without evidence, especially when the accusations are repeated or severe. Comments should not be personalised, but should instead be directed at content and specific actions. Disparaging an editor or casting aspersions can be considered a personal attack. If accusations are made, they should be raised, with evidence, on the user-talk page of the editor they concern or in the appropriate dispute resolution forums. -2013-11
An editor must not accuse another of inappropriate conduct without evidence, especially when the accusations are repeated or severe. Comments should not be personalized, but should instead be directed at content and specific actions. Disparaging an editor or casting aspersions can be considered a personal attack. If accusations are made, they should be raised, with evidence, on the user-talk page of the editor they concern or in the appropriate dispute resolution forums. -2015-12, 2020-03
An editor must not accuse another of inappropriate conduct without evidence, especially when the accusations are repeated or severe. Comments should not be personalised, but should instead be directed at content and specific actions. Disparaging an editor or casting aspersions can be considered a personal attack. If accusations are made, they should be raised, with evidence, on the user-talk page of the editor they concern or in the appropriate dispute resolution forums. -2014-12
An editor must not accuse another of inappropriate conduct without evidence, especially when the accusations are repeated or severe. Comments should not be personalised, but should instead be directed at content and specific actions. Disparaging an editor or casting aspersions can be considered a personal attack. If accusations are made, they should be raised, with evidence, on the user talk page of the editor they concern or in the appropriate dispute resolution forum. -2018-03
An editor must not accuse another of inappropriate conduct without evidence, especially when the accusations are repeated or severe. Comments should not be personalized, but should instead be directed at content and specific actions. Disparaging an editor or casting aspersions can be considered a personal attack. If accusations are made, they should be raised, with evidence, on the user talk page of the editor they concern or in the appropriate dispute resolution forums. -2018-08
An editor must not accuse another of inappropriate conduct without evidence, especially when the accusations are repeated or severe. Comments should not be personalised, but should instead be directed at content and specific actions. Disparaging an editor or casting aspersions can be considered a personal attack. If accusations are made, they should be raised, with evidence, on the user talk page of the editor they concern or in the appropriate dispute resolution forum. -2020-06
Decorum
Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users; to approach even difficult situations in a dignified fashion and with a constructive and collaborative outlook; and to avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility and assumptions of bad faith, is prohibited. -2009-07
Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users; to approach even difficult situations in a dignified fashion and with a constructive and collaborative outlook; and to avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. Unseemly conduct from all sides of a dispute, such as personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, trolling, harassment, disruptive point-making, and gaming the system, is prohibited. -2009-09
Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users; to approach even difficult situations in a dignified fashion and with a constructive and collaborative outlook; and to avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, harassment, or disruptive point-making, is prohibited. -2009-09, 2010-08
Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users; to approach even difficult situations in a dignified fashion and with a constructive and collaborative outlook; and to avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, trolling, harassment, disruptive point-making, and gaming the system, is prohibited. -2013-06, 2020-03
Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users; to approach even difficult situations in a dignified fashion and with a constructive and collaborative outlook; and to avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. In content disputes, editors should comment on the content and not the contributor. Personalising content disputes disrupts the consensus-building process on which Wikipedia depends. Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility and assumptions of bad faith, is prohibited. -2013-11
Administrators are expected to behave respectfully and civilly in their interactions with others. This requirement is not lessened by perceived or actual shortcomings in the conduct of others. Administrators who egregiously or repeatedly act in a problematic manner, or administrators who lose the trust or confidence of the community, may be sanctioned or have their access removed. -2014-12
Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users. Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, harassment, disruptive point-making, and gaming the system, is prohibited. Making unsupported accusations of such misconduct by other editors, particularly where this is done repeatedly or in a bad-faith attempt to gain an advantage in a content dispute, is also unacceptable. -2015-01
Wikipedia editors are expected to behave reasonably and calmly in their interactions with other editors, to keep their cool when editing, and to avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. Administrators are expected to adhere to this at a higher standard. Unseemly conduct—including, but not limited to, lack of respect for other editors, failure to work towards consensus, disrupting Wikipedia to make a point, offensive comments, trolling, harassment, gaming the system, and failure to assume good faith—is inconsistent with Wikipedia. Editors should not respond to such behaviour in kind; concerns regarding the actions of other editors should be brought up in the appropriate forums. -2016-06
Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably and calmly in their interactions with other users, to keep their cool when editing, and to avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. Administrators are expected to adhere to this at a higher standard. Unseemly conduct—including, but not limited to, edit-warring, personal attacks, lack of respect for other editors, failure to work towards consensus, disrupting Wikipedia to make a point, trolling, harassment, gaming the system, and failure to assume good faith are all inconsistent with civility on Wikipedia. -2018-03
Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users. Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, harassment, disruptive point-making, and gaming the system, is prohibited. Making unsupported accusations of such misconduct by other editors, particularly where this is done in repeatedly or in a bad-faith attempt to gain an advantage in a content dispute, is also unacceptable. -2013-09, 2020-01
Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users. Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, harassment, disruptive point-making, and gaming the system, is prohibited. -2020-02, 2021-03, 2022-12
Wikipedia editors are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in all interactions with other editors; to approach even difficult situations in a dignified fashion and with a constructive and collaborative outlook; and to avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility and assumptions of bad faith, is prohibited. –2023-07
Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users. Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, harassment, disruptive point-making, and gaming the system, is prohibited. Making unsupported accusations of such misconduct by other editors, particularly where this is done repeatedly or in a bad-faith attempt to gain an advantage in a content dispute, is also unacceptable. -2023-12
Definition of paid editing
The core definition of "paid editing" includes an edit made, or an on-wiki action taken, by an editor in return for payment to or for the benefit of that editor. -2018-01
Deletion and speedy deletion
Administrators have the ability to delete articles and other Wikipedia pages from general view, and to undelete pages that were previously deleted. These powers are exercised in accordance with established policies and guidelines, and community consensus.
Under certain limited conditions, a page may be deleted by an administrator without waiting for any discussion. These limited conditions are explained in depth at Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion. Administrators should take care not to speedy delete pages except in the most obvious cases. -2020-02
Determining sanctions
In deciding what sanctions to impose against an editor, the Arbitration Committee will consider the editor's overall record of participation, behavioural history, and other relevant circumstances. An editor's positive and valuable contributions in one aspect of his or her participation on Wikipedia do not excuse misbehaviour or questionable judgement in another aspect of participation, but may be considered in determining the sanction to be imposed. -2018-03
Detrimental editing
The core purpose of the Wikipedia project is to create a high-quality free encyclopedia. Contributors whose actions are detrimental to that goal may be asked to refrain from making them, even when these actions are undertaken in good faith. -2010-10
Discussion of content
Wikipedia discussions are about forming a consensus, not convincing everyone to agree. Discussion is an important part of how consensus is reached on Wikipedia and everyone should have the opportunity to express their views, within reasonable limits. It may be taken as disruptive to attempt stalling out the consensus-building process by repeatedly stating an opinion or with repeated demands for re-explanation of that which has already been clearly explained. -2021-09
Discussion of problems and issues
It is essential that Wikipedians be able to discuss issues affecting the project, including those that may arise from societal issues, in an intelligent, calm, and mature fashion. Editors may come to a given discussion with different views concerning what problem (if any) exists and what steps (if any) should be taken to try to address it. However, editors are expected to participate in such discussions in a collegial and constructive frame of mind. Those who fail to do so may be asked to step away from further participation. -2014-12
Dismissing an enforcement request
Dismissing an enforcement request is an exercise of judgment and therefore constitutes an enforcement action. As such, once a request has been dismissed by an uninvolved administrator, it may not be reopened.In these cases, any interested users may, after discussion with the administrator in question, appeal the dismissal to the Arbitration Committee at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment, but care should be taken that this only be done when appropriate. Petitioners who forum shop by resubmitting denied enforcement requests without good reason may find themselves cautioned or sanctioned in return. -2015-08
Dispute resolution
Disagreements concerning article content are to be resolved by seeking to build consensus through the use of polite discussion. The dispute resolution process is designed to assist consensus-building when normal talk page communication has not worked, or when discussion has broken down. When there is a good-faith dispute, editors are expected to participate in the consensus-building process through discussion, collaboration and consideration, rather than simply edit-warring back-and-forth to competing versions. Sustained editorial conflict and using the dispute resolution processes to game the system is not an appropriate way of resolving conduct disputes. -2011-11
If a dispute becomes protracted or the subject of extensive or heated discussion, the views and comments of uninvolved contributors should be sought. Insulating a content dispute for long periods can lead to the disputants become entrenched, and so unresolvable questions of content should be referred at the first opportunity to the community at large—whether in a Request for Comment, Third Opinion, or other suitable mechanism for inviting comment from a new perspective. -2019-07
Wikipedia contributors are expected to pursue dispute resolution if internal discussion alone does not yield consensus on a matter of content. -2012-02
Disputes and biographical articles
An editor who is involved in a controversy or dispute with another individual, either on Wikipedia or off, should generally refrain from creating or editing the biographical article on that individual. -2014-12
Disruption
Editors may be blocked for disruptive behaviour, which can include repeated or extensive violations of the civility policy, refusal to work toward consensus, or repeatedly ignoring community feedback. -2012-02
Disruption by administrators
Because of their position of trust in the community, administrators are held to a higher standard of behavior than non-administrators. Sustained disruption of Wikipedia is incompatible with the status of administrator. Administrators who repeatedly and aggressively engage in inappropriate activity may be desysopped by the Arbitration Committee. -2009-06
Sustained disruption of Wikipedia is incompatible with the status of administrator. Administrators who repeatedly and aggressively engage in inappropriate activity may be faced with sanctions by the Arbitration Committee, including the removal of administrator status. Administrators are also expected to learn from experience and from justified criticisms of their actions. -2012-07
Disruption to prove a point
The point guideline says "if you disagree with a proposal, practice, or policy in Wikipedia, disruptively applying it is probably the least effective way of discrediting it – and such behavior may get you blocked". -2010-02
Disruptive and tendentious editing
Contributors who engage in tendentious or disruptive editing, such as by engaging in sustained aggressive point-of-view editing or repeatedly misusing sources to favor a particular view, may be banned from the articles in question or from the site. -2011-04
Disruptive editing
Disruptive editing, which can include persistent vandalism, edit-warring, sockpuppetry, and repeated insertion of unsourced or poorly sourced controversial content, is cause for blocking an account. Repeated violations of Wikipedia behavioural and editing policies may lead to indefinite blocks which become de facto bans when no administrator will consider unblocking, particularly if the editor uses multiple accounts to behave disruptively. -2010-10
Disruptive or tendentious editing
Contributors who engage in tendentious or disruptive editing of articles, such as by engaging in sustained aggressive point-of-view editing or editing against consensus, may be banned from the articles in question or from the site. -2013-12
Edit Warring
Edit warring is detrimental to the editing environment as it disrupts articles and tends to inflame content disputes rather than resolve them. Users who engage in multiple reverts of the same content but are careful not to breach the three revert rule are still edit warring. -2015-12
Edit summaries
Editors are expected to use edit summaries to make it easy for other editors to see what is being done with an article. Leaving the edit summary field blank is undesirable, and using it to mislead as to the substance of one's edits is prohibited. -2010-04
Edit warring
Edit-warring, whether by reversion or otherwise, is prohibited; this is so even when the disputed content is clearly problematic, with very limited exceptions. The three-revert rule does not entitle users to revert a page three times each day, nor does it endorse reverting as an editing technique. -2009-06, 2009-10
Edit-warring is harmful. When disagreements arise, users are expected to discuss their differences rationally rather than reverting ad infinitum. Revert rules should not be construed as an entitlement or inalienable right to revert, nor do they endorse reverts as an editing technique. -2009-09
Edit warring, whether by reversion or otherwise, is prohibited; this is so even when the disputed content is clearly problematic, with very limited exceptions. The three-revert rule does not entitle users to revert a page three times each day, nor does it endorse reverting as an editing technique. -2011-11
Edit warring is not desirable as it disrupts articles and tends to inflame content disputes rather than resolve them. Users who engage in multiple reverts of the same content but are careful not to breach the three revert rule are still edit warring. -2014-07, 2019-07
Edit warring is undesirable as it disrupts the editing process and inflames rather than resolves content disputes. Users who engage in multiple reverts of the same content but are careful not to breach the three revert rule are still edit warring. -2015-03
Edit warring is detrimental to the editing environment as it disrupts articles and tends to inflame content disputes rather than resolve them. Users who engage in multiple reverts of the same content but are careful not to breach the three revert rule are still edit warring. -2015-06
Edit warring is disruptive and tends to inflame content disputes rather than resolve them. Users who engage in multiple reverts of the same content but are careful not to breach the three revert rule are still edit warring. -2015-12, 2023-03
Edit warring is unconstructive as it causes ill-will between editors and makes it harder to reach consensus. Editors who engage in multiple reverts of the same content but are careful not to breach the three revert rule are still edit warring. Editors engaged in a dispute should reach consensus or pursue dispute resolution rather than engage in edit warring. -2016-06
Edit warring is not an acceptable editing practice, whether the three-revert rule is broken or not. Editors are expected to engage in calm discussion and if necessary dispute resolution rather than making repeated reverts of disputed content. -2014-12
Edit warring is not acceptable behaviour as it disrupts articles and tends to inflame content disputes rather than resolve them. Editors are expected to engage in calm discussion and, if necessary, dispute resolution rather than making repeated reverts of disputed content. -2015-08
Edit warring is disruptive. An edit war occurs when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions. Editors engaged in a dispute should reach consensus or pursue dispute resolution rather than edit war. While reverting vandalism is not edit warring, only reverting obvious vandalism—edits that any well-intentioned user would agree constitute vandalism—is considered an exception. Edits from a slanted point of view, general insertion or removal of material, or other good-faith changes are not considered vandalism. –2023-07
Edit warring and BLP
In the case of edits which fall afoul of the biographies of living persons policy, exemptions from the edit-warring policy are made for removing BLP violations. Restoring what is perceived to be a BLP violation, instead of discussing whether it is a BLP violation or not, can lead to sanctions. -2016-06
Edit warring is prohibited
Edit-warring, whether by reversion or otherwise, is prohibited; this includes slow-moving disputes that would not ordinarily fall under the three-revert rule. -2010-04
Edit-warring considered harmful
Edit-warring is harmful. When disagreements arise, users are expected to discuss their differences rationally rather than reverting ad infinitum. Revert rules should not be construed as an entitlement or inalienable right to revert, nor do they endorse reverts as an editing technique. -2009-07
Editor behavior and decorum
Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users. Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, harassment, disruptive point-making, and gaming the system, is prohibited. Making unsupported accusations of such misconduct by other editors, particularly where this is done repeatedly or in a bad-faith attempt to gain an advantage in a content dispute, is also unacceptable. -2014-12
Editor conduct
Wikipedia editors are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other editors; to approach even difficult situations in a dignified fashion and with a constructive and collaborative outlook; and to avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, disruptive point-making, and gaming the system, is prohibited. -2009-06, 2016-10, 2017-10, 2018-12, 2022-03
Editor conduct and decorum
Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users; to approach even difficult situations in a dignified fashion and with a constructive and collaborative outlook. Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, and disruptive point-making, is prohibited. -2009-07
Editor decorum
Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users; to approach even difficult situations in a dignified fashion and with a constructive and collaborative outlook; and to avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. In content disputes, editors should comment on the content and not the contributor. Personalising content disputes disrupts the consensus-building process on which Wikipedia depends. Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, and assumptions of bad faith, is prohibited. -2010-04
Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users; to approach even difficult situations in a dignified fashion and with a constructive and collaborative outlook. Unseemly conduct from all sides of a dispute, such as personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, and disruptive point-making, is prohibited. -2012-07
Editor interactions
Wikipedia editors are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other editors; to approach even difficult situations in a dignified fashion and with a constructive and collaborative outlook; and to avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, harassment, disruptive point-making, and gaming the system, is prohibited. -2013-03
Editor privacy
Wikipedia is the encyclopedia anyone can edit, and editors are welcome to edit without disclosing their identity. Revealing private information about an editor that they have not disclosed on Wikipedia themselves is prohibited. Although editors are strongly encouraged to disclose any conflicts of interest they may have with topic areas in which they edit, and are required to disclose if they are being paid for their edits, knowledge or suspicion that an editor has a COI or is editing for pay does not excuse revealing that editor's personal information. If necessary, these concerns can be handled privately. -2024-04
Wikipedia is the encyclopedia anyone can edit, and editors are welcome to edit without disclosing their identity. Revealing private information about an editor that they have not disclosed on Wikipedia themselves is prohibited. Although editors are strongly encouraged to disclose any conflicts of interest they may have with topic areas in which they edit, and are required to disclose if they are being paid for their edits, knowledge or suspicion that an editor has a COI or is editing for pay does not excuse revealing that editor's personal information. If necessary, these concerns can be handled privately. -2020-04
Editorial conduct
Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users; to approach even difficult situations in a dignified fashion and with a constructive and collaborative outlook; and to avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, trolling, harassment, disruptive point-making, and gaming the system, is prohibited. Concerns regarding the actions of other users should be brought up in the appropriate forums. -2009-10
Editorial decisions and resistance to censorship
The principle that "Wikipedia is not censored" is properly invoked in resisting attempts to control the content of Wikipedia articles based on factors other than our editors' informed and mature collective editorial judgments. In controversial instances, reminding fellow editors that "Wikipedia is not censored" will often be the beginning, not the end, of a well-informed analysis regarding inclusion or exclusion of content. In particular, if an element (a statement or an image) does not otherwise belong in an article, the fact that people want it excluded is a poor argument for including it. A consensus for inclusion or exclusion should be sought based on the community's collective editorial judgment, well-informed by knowledge of the relevant subject matter and, where applicable, by Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. -2012-02
Editorial process
Wikipedia works by building consensus through the use of polite discussion—involving the wider community, if necessary—and dispute resolution, rather than through disruptive editing. Editors are each responsible for noticing when a debate is escalating into an edit war, and for helping the debate move to better approaches by discussing their differences rationally. This applies to any and all pages on Wikipedia, from Articles to Templates to Project space. -2009-06
Wikipedia works by building consensus through the use of polite discussion—involving the wider community, if necessary—and dispute resolution, rather than through disruptive editing. Editors are each responsible for noticing when a debate is escalating into an edit war, and for helping the debate move to better approaches by discussing their differences rationally. Sustained editorial conflict is not an appropriate method of resolving disputes. -2010-04
Wikipedia works by building consensus. This is done through the use of polite discussion—involving the wider community, if necessary—and dispute resolution, rather than through disruptive editing. Editors are each responsible for noticing when a debate is escalating into an edit war, and for helping the debate move to better approaches by discussing their differences rationally. Edit-warring, whether by reversion or otherwise, is prohibited; this is so even when the disputed content is clearly problematic, with only a few exceptions. Revert rules should not be construed as an entitlement or inalienable right to revert, nor do they endorse reverts as an editing technique. -2012-03, 2013-09, 2018-03
Wikipedia works by building consensus. This is done through the use of polite discussion—involving the wider community, if necessary—and dispute resolution, rather than through disruptive editing. Editors are each responsible for noticing when a debate is escalating, and for helping the debate move to better approaches by discussing their differences rationally. No one owns an article. -2009-12
Wikipedia works by building consensus. This is done through the use of polite discussion—involving the wider community, if necessary—and dispute resolution, rather than through disruptive editing. Editors are each responsible for noticing when a debate is escalating into an edit war, and for helping the debate move to better approaches by discussing their differences rationally. Edit-warring, whether by reversion or otherwise, is prohibited; this is so even when the disputed content is clearly problematic, with only a few exceptions. Revert rules should not be construed as an entitlement or inalienable right to revert, nor do they endorse reverts as an editing technique. -2011-02
Wikipedia works by building consensus through the use of polite discussion—involving the wider community, if necessary—and dispute resolution, rather than through adversarial or tendentious editing. Sustained editorial conflict or edit-warring is not an appropriate method of resolving disputes. -2011-03
Wikipedia works by building consensus through the use of polite discussion—involving the wider community, if necessary—and dispute resolution, rather than through adversarial editing. Sustained editorial conflict or edit-warring is not an appropriate method of resolving disputes. -2011-03
Wikipedia works by building consensus through the use of polite discussion—involving the wider community, if necessary—and dispute resolution, rather than through disruptive editing. Sustained editorial conflict or edit-warring is not an appropriate method of resolving disputes. -2011-04
Editors and the Arbitration Committee
Editors are expected to be truthful and accurate in statements and evidence presented to the Arbitration Committee. -2012-07, 2022-12
Encyclopedic coverage of science
Encyclopedias are generally expected to provide overviews of scientific topics that are in line with current mainstream scientific thought, while also recognizing significant alternate viewpoints. -2010-10
Enforcement of decisions
The Arbitration Committee relies on the community to enforce its decisions. Administrators do not have to get involved in enforcement, if they do not wish to; however, they are expected to refrain from hindering the enforcement of arbitration decisions.Administrators whose actions have the effect of interfering with the enforcement of the Arbitration Committee's decisions may have their administrative status revoked. -2015-12
Enforcement of the BLP policy
Despite the core values underlying the BLP policy, disagreements frequently arise regarding how the policy applies in specific instances. Some such disagreements arise from clear violations of the policy that must be corrected immediately, but others arise from good-faith editorial disagreements concerning the reliability of sources, the desirability of addressing a particular topic and with what weight, and in some cases whether a particular individual should be the subject of an article at all. A dedicated noticeboard has been established to bring disputes about the content of BLPs to community attention for discussion and, where warranted, appropriate action. Disputes concerning alleged BLP violations are also subject to Wikipedia's established methods of dispute resolution, culminating in mediation and where other dispute-resolution methods are insufficient, arbitration before this Committee. -2011-09
Enough is enough
When all reasonable attempts to control the spread of disruption arising from long-term disputes have failed, the Committee may be compelled to adopt seemingly draconian measures as a last resort for preventing further damage to the encyclopedia and to the community. -2010-10
When the community's extensive and reasonable attempts to control the spread of disruption arising from long-term disputes have failed, the Committee may, as a last resort, be compelled to adopt robust measures to prevent further damage to the encyclopedia, disruption to the editing environment and to the community. -2015-01
Equality and respect
Wikipedia editors and readers are culturally diverse by virtue of their race, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sex, gender or sexual orientation. Comments that demean fellow editors, an article subject, or any other person, on the basis of any of these characteristics are offensive and damage the editing environment for everyone. Such comments, particularly when extreme or repeated after a warning, are grounds for blocking or other sanctions. Harassment of other editors for any reason will not be tolerated and is also grounds for blocking or other sanctions. -2015-12
Wikipedia editors and readers come from a diverse range of backgrounds, including with respect to their race, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sex or gender, sexual orientation, and gender identity or expression. Comments that demean fellow editors, an article subject, or any other person, on the basis of any of these characteristics are offensive and damage the editing environment for everyone. Such comments, particularly when extreme or repeated after a warning, are grounds for blocking or other sanctions. -2013-10
Errors in editing
Editors are not expected to be perfect. It is completely understandable that a contributor may occasionally make a mistake, such as construing a source in a fashion that other editors ascertain is incorrect, or making an edit that too clearly reflects a partisan point of view. However, when an editor's contributions reflect a consistent pattern of errors such as slanted edits or mis-cited sources and violations of policies and guidelines, the situation is far more serious. This is especially so when the tendency of the errors and violations is uniformly in the direction of a particular point of view. -2011-04
Escalating conflicts
While wider community participation in dispute resolution can help resolve disputes, participating editors are expected to remain civil and to assume good faith to avoid further inflaming the dispute. -2012-07
Etiquette
Wikipedia's code of conduct is one of the five pillars of Wikipedia that all editors should adhere to. Wikipedia editors are expected to behave reasonably and calmly in their interactions with other users, to keep their cool when editing, and to avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. Administrators are expected to adhere to this at a higher standard. Unseemly conduct—including, but not limited to, edit-warring, personal attacks, lack of respect for other editors, failure to work towards consensus, disrupting Wikipedia to make a point, offensive language (including rude, offensive, derogatory, and insulting terms—whether in English, a language other than English, or using invented terms), trolling, harassment, gaming the system, and failure to assume good faith are all inconsistent with Wikipedia etiquette. Editors should not respond to such behavior in kind; concerns regarding the actions of other users should be addressed in the appropriate forums. -2012-02
Wikipedia's code of conduct is one of the five pillars of Wikipedia that all editors should adhere to. Wikipedia editors are expected to behave reasonably and calmly in their interactions with other users, to keep their cool when editing, and to avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. -2015-12
Wikipedia's code of conduct is one of the five pillars of Wikipedia that all editors must adhere to. Editors are expected to behave reasonably and calmly in their interactions with other users, to keep their cool when editing, and to avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. Unseemly conduct—including, but not limited to, edit-warring, lack of respect for other editors, failure to work towards consensus, disrupting Wikipedia to make a point, and failure to assume good faith—are all incompatible with Wikipedia's standards of etiquette. Concerns regarding the actions of other users should be addressed in the appropriate forums. -2012-06
Wikipedia's code of conduct is one of the five pillars of Wikipedia that all editors should adhere to. Wikipedia editors are expected to behave reasonably and calmly in their interactions with other users, to keep their cool when editing, and to avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. Administrators are expected to adhere to this at a higher standard. Unseemly conduct—including, but not limited to, personal attacks, lack of respect for other editors, disrupting Wikipedia to make a point, offensive language, trolling and harassment, are all inconsistent with Wikipedia etiquette. Editors should not respond to such behavior in kind; concerns regarding the actions of other users should be addressed in the appropriate forums. -2013-08
Wikipedia's code of conduct is one of the five pillars of Wikipedia that all editors must adhere to. Editors are expected to behave reasonably and calmly in their interactions with other users, to keep their cool when editing, and to avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. Unseemly conduct—including, but not limited to, edit-warring, lack of respect for other editors, failure to work towards consensus, and failure to assume good faith—are all incompatible with Wikipedia's standards of etiquette. -2013-12
Evaluating user conduct
An editor's positive and valuable contributions in one aspect of his or her participation on Wikipedia do not excuse bad behavior or misconduct in another aspect of participation. An editor's misconduct also is not excused because another editor or editors may also have engaged in such conduct. Such factors may nonetheless be considered in mitigation of any sanction to be imposed, or for other relevant purposes such as an inferring a user's overall intent toward the project. -2009-07, 2019-07
Evidence not endorsed
While the Arbitration Committee may link to sections of evidence presented, the Committee does not necessarily endorse the evidence presented as completely true and factual. Some sections of the evidence may be factual, and is what the Committee is attempting to highlight in their decision. The views presented in evidence are solely those of the person presenting the evidence and do not directly represent the views of the Arbitration Committee. -2015-11
Evidence sub-pages in user space
Longstanding consensus at Miscellany for Deletion is that editors may work up drafts in their userspace for the sole purpose of submitting the material as evidence in arbitration cases. However, after the case closes, the sub-pages should be courtesy-blanked or deleted as they are often perceived as attack pages and serve only to memorialise and perpetuate the dispute. Evidence should properly be submitted only on arbitration pages as it is impossible to ensure that all the parties are aware of all the sub-pages that might have a bearing on them. -2010-10
Existing policy on pricing
The Wikipedia policy What Wikipedia is not includes, "an article should not include product pricing or availability information unless there is an independent source and a justified reason for the mention [...] Wikipedia is not a price comparison service to be used to compare the prices of competing products, or the prices of a single product from different vendors." The policy on pricing has existed in almost its exact wording for a decade.[1] -2020-06
Expert editors and original research
Expert editors with published resources are welcome on Wikipedia, and are free to include references to their own published works, if they meet the standards of reliable sources. However, the guidelines concerning conflicts of interest must be observed, and where there is a dispute as to the use or interpretation of such sources, consensus must be gained for their inclusion. -2011-03
Expressing concern
From time to time, users, including admins, may need to express concerns in clear, firm terms about another user's decisions or actions. However, all users are expected to not personally attack other Wikipedians. This applies equally to all: it is as unacceptable to attack a user who has a history of complaints against them, as it is to attack any other. Wikipedia encourages a positive online community: people make mistakes, but they are encouraged to learn from them and change their ways. Personal attacks are contrary to this spirit, damaging to the work of building an encyclopedia. –2023-07
Fact versus opinion
In drafting articles and especially in discussing disputed article content, editors should take appropriate care to distinguish reasonably agreed-upon facts from statements of opinion or partisan views. When the accuracy of a statement cannot reasonably be contested, it is inappropriate in discussing article content to deny that the statement is true, although it may still be entirely appropriate to question whether the fact is relevant to a particular article or has been given undue weight in that article When a statement is a matter of opinion, however, the article should make clear who or what side of a dispute holds that opinion and
ensure that competing opinions with a reasonable degree of support are also represented. -2010-05
Fair criticism
Editors are encouraged to engage in frank discussion of matters affecting the project, and are encouraged to share even those facts and opinions which demonstrate the shortcomings of the project, its policies, its decision-making structure, and its leaders. Such discourse is limited by the expectation that even difficult situations will be resolved in a dignified fashion, and by policies that prohibit behavior such as personal attacks and legal threats. Editors who have genuine grievances against others are expected to avail themselves of dispute resolution mechanisms rather than engage in unbridled criticism across all available forums. -2010-03
Editors are encouraged to engage in frank discussion of matters affecting the project, and are encouraged to share even those facts and opinions which demonstrate the shortcomings of the project, its policies, its decision making structure, and its leaders. Such discourse is limited by the expectation that even difficult situations will be resolved in a dignified fashion, and by policies which prohibit behavior such as personal attacks and legal threats. Editors who have genuine grievances against others are expected to use the dispute resolution mechanism rather than engage in unbridled criticism across all available forums. -2012-02
Editors are encouraged to engage in frank discussion of matters affecting the project, and are encouraged to share even those facts and opinions which demonstrate the shortcomings of the project, its policies, its decision making structure, and its leaders. Such discourse is limited by the expectation that even difficult situations will be resolved in a dignified fashion, with evidence and without resorting to personal attacks. Editors who have genuine grievances against others are expected to avail themselves of the most appropriate dispute resolution mechanism. -2016-06, 2023-05
Editors are encouraged to engage in frank discussion of matters affecting the project, and are encouraged to share even those facts and opinions which demonstrate the shortcomings of the project, its policies, its decision making structure, and its leaders. Such discourse is limited by the expectation that even difficult situations will be resolved in a dignified fashion, and by policies which prohibit behavior such as personal attacks and legal threats. Editors who have genuine grievances against others are expected to avail themselves of the dispute resolution mechanism rather than engage in unbridled criticism across all available forums. -2009-12
Editors are encouraged to engage in frank discussion of matters affecting the project, and are encouraged to share even facts and opinions demonstrating the shortcomings of the project, its policies, its decision-making structure, and its leaders. Such discourse is limited by the expectation that even difficult situations will be resolved in a dignified fashion, and by policies that prohibit behavior such as personal attacks. Editors who have genuine grievances against others are expected to avail themselves of the dispute resolution mechanisms rather than engage in unbridled criticism across all available forums. -2014-12
Fair criticism and personal attacks
Wikipedia is a reference work, not a battlefield. Each and every user is expected to interact with others civilly, calmly, and in a spirit of cooperation. Open discussion is encouraged in every area of the encyclopedia as it is only by discussion that cooperation is possible. However, certain types of discourse – in particular, personal attacks – are not only discouraged but forbidden because they create a toxic atmosphere and thwart the building of consensus. For this reason, editors are expected to comment on the edits, not on the editor. Editors with concerns about other editors should use the community's dispute resolution processes calmly and civilly to resolve their differences rather than repeatedly engaging in strident personalised criticism in multiple forums. Editors who are unable to resolve their differences should seek to minimize the extent of any unnecessary interactions between them and, in extreme cases, may be directed to do so. -2011-09
Wikipedia is a reference work, not a battlefield. Each and every user is expected to interact with others civilly, calmly, and in a spirit of cooperation. Open discussion is encouraged in every area of the encyclopedia, as it is only by discussion that cooperation is possible. However, certain types of discourse – in particular, personal attacks – are not only discouraged but forbidden because they create a toxic atmosphere and thwart the building of consensus. For this reason, editors are expected to comment on the edits, not on the editor. Editors with concerns about other editors should use the community's dispute resolution processes calmly and civilly to resolve their differences rather than repeatedly engaging in strident personalised criticism in multiple forums. Editors who are unable to resolve their differences should seek to minimize the extent of any unnecessary interactions between them and, in extreme cases, may be directed to do so. -2011-11
Wikipedia is a reference work, not a battlefield. Each and every user is expected to interact with others civilly, calmly, and in a spirit of cooperation. Open discussion is encouraged in every area of the encyclopedia as it is only by discussion that cooperation is possible. However, certain types of discourse – in particular, personal attacks – are not only discouraged but forbidden because they create a toxic atmosphere and thwart the building of consensus. For this reason, editors are expected to comment on the edits, not on the editor. Editors with concerns about other editors should use the community's dispute resolution processes calmly and civilly to resolve their differences rather than repeatedly engaging in strident personalised criticism in multiple forums. Editors who are unable to resolve their differences should seek to minimize the extent of any unnecessary interactions between them and, in extreme cases, may be directed to do so. -2014-12
Fait accompli
Editors who are collectively or individually making large numbers of similar edits, and are apprised that those edits are controversial or disputed, are expected to attempt to resolve the dispute through discussion. It is inappropriate to use repetition or volume in order to present opponents with a fait accompli or to exhaust their ability to contest the change. -2011-02
Editors who make many similar edits, contrary to clear advice that these edits are controversial or incorrect, must pursue discussion and dispute resolution. Repetitive or voluminous edit patterns—which present opponents with a fait accompli and exhaust their ability to contest the change, or defy a reasonable decision arrived at by consensus—are disruptive. -2012-06, 2013-12
Editors who are collectively or individually making large numbers of similar edits, and are apprised that those edits are controversial or disputed, are expected to attempt to resolve the dispute through discussion. It is inappropriate to use repetition or volume to present opponents with a fait accompli or to exhaust their ability to contest the change. This applies to many editors making a few edits each, as well as a few editors making many edits. -2020-06
Featured Articles
Featured articles are considered to be some of the best articles Wikipedia has to offer. Featured articles can be edited in the same way as other Wikipedia articles, although this should be done with care. Featured articles that may no longer meet the criteria should be appropriately edited to maintain their quality, or may be proposed for improvement or removal at featured article review. -2018-08
Feuding and bad blood
Community attempts to resolve disputes calmly and expeditiously are thwarted when the processes are disrupted by inflammatory accusations and disparaging rhetoric as editors seemingly pursue long term feuds with each other. Users with a history of bad blood should take appropriate steps, including disengagement, to reduce rather than increase negative interpersonal contact. Serious or serial feuding can lead to blocks, interaction bans or site bans to prevent the spread of disruption to the encyclopedia and the community. -2015-07
Following another editor's contributions
It is important to distinguish between an editor's reviewing and as appropriate correcting or commenting on the edits of a fellow editor whose contributions are problematic, which is acceptable and in some cases necessary, and the practice referred to as "wikihounding" or "wikistalking," which constitutes a form of harassment and is prohibited. See Wikipedia:Harassment#Wikihounding, an important policy that addresses these issues. While the line separating proper from improper behavior in this area may not always be sharply defined, relevant factors include whether the subject editor's contributions are actually viewed as problematic by multiple users or the community; whether the concerned editor raises concerns appropriately on talkpages or noticeboards and explains why the edits are problematic; and ultimately, whether the concerns raised reasonably appear to be motivated by good-faith, substantiated concerns about the quality of the encyclopedia, rather than personal animus against a particular editor. -2013-03
It is important, though it can sometimes be difficult, to distinguish between an editor's reviewing and, as appropriate, correcting or commenting on the edits of a fellow editor making problematic edits, which is acceptable and in some cases even necessary, and the practice referred to as "wikihounding" or "wikistalking," which constitutes a form of harassment and is prohibited. See Wikipedia:Harassment#Wikihounding. While the line separating proper from improper behavior in this area may not always be sharply defined, relevant factors include whether the subject editor's contributions are actually viewed as problematic by multiple users or the community; whether the concerned editor raises concerns appropriately on talkpages or noticeboards and explains why the edits are problematic; and ultimately, whether the concerns raised reasonably appear to be motivated by good-faith, substantiated concerns about the quality of the encyclopedia, rather than personal animus against a particular editor. -2019-09
Forum shopping
"Forum shopping" is the raising of essentially the same issue on multiple noticeboards and talk pages, or to multiple administrators, or any of these repetitively. It is unhelpful to finding and achieving consensus. -2015-12
Fresh eyes
Wikipedia contributors are expected to pursue dispute resolution if local discussion alone does not yield consensus on a matter of content. This is particularly so when a dispute becomes protracted or the subject of extensive or heated discussion. Insulating a content dispute from the views of uninvolved contributors for long periods can lead to the disputants' positions become entrenched. Therefore, unresolved questions of content should be referred at the first opportunity to the community at large—through a Request for Comment, Third Opinion, or other suitable mechanism for inviting comment from a new perspective. -2013-03
If a dispute becomes protracted or the subject of extensive or heated discussion, the views and comments of uninvolved contributors should be sought. Insulating a content dispute for long periods can lead to the disputants become entrenched, and so unresolvable questions of content should be referred at the first opportunity to the community at large—whether in a Request for Comment, Third Opinion, or other suitable mechanism for inviting comment from a new perspective. -2014-07
Function of WikiProjects
The function of WikiProjects is to facilitate and improve editing in a topic area. Popular WikiProjects like the military history WikiProject may have a group of coordinators that have been selected by approval vote of the project community. Their role is to maintain the internal structure and process of the project, and do not have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. -2018-08
Functionary status
Functionaries (users holding checkuser or oversight permissions) are held to a higher standard of behavior than non-functionaries, especially in issues related to their area of responsibility. Users who demonstrate a lack of judgment in an area related to their special access may have their status as functionaries revoked, whether or not an explicit abuse of their privileged access has occurred. See Wikipedia:Functionaries. –2022-11
Gaming the system
Using Wikipedia policies and guidelines in bad faith to thwart the aims of Wikipedia and the process of communal editorship deliberately is gaming, and a disruptive abuse of process. Activities such as coordinating around policy such as the revert rules, or any other attempt to subvert the spirit of any policy or process in order to further a dispute is disruptive. -2009-12
Attempting to force an untoward interpretation of policy, or impose one's own novel or excessively strict view of "standards to apply" rather than those of the community is an example of gaming the system and should be avoided. Users who do so should consider their subsequent approach carefully if they find they are the only ones arguing when the community clearly has reached a different view, and should balance their own wishes and views with the reality of any widespread disagreement. -2009-12
General sanctions
Subject to community approval, general sanctions are imposed on certain contentious and strife-torn topics to create an acceptable and collaborative editing environment. Such sanctions often follow the model of discretionary sanctions as imposed by the Arbitration Committee, which allows administrators to impose a variety of reasonable measures on users or articles that are necessary and proportionate for the smooth running of the project. -2021-02
Community-authorized general sanctions are imposed on certain contentious and strife-torn topics to create an acceptable and collaborative editing environment. Such sanctions often follow the model of discretionary sanctions as imposed by the Arbitration Committee, which allows administrators to impose a variety of reasonable measures on users or articles that are necessary and proportionate for the smooth running of the project. -2021-09
Good faith and disruption
Inappropriate behavior driven by good intentions is still inappropriate. Editors acting in good faith may still be sanctioned when their actions are disruptive. -2009-06, 2011-03, 2016-10, 2018-03
Disruptive behavior driven by good intentions is still inappropriate. Editors acting in good faith may still be sanctioned when their actions are disruptive. -2012-02
Behavior that violates Wikipedia's policies, even if driven by good intentions, is still inappropriate. Editors acting in good faith may still be sanctioned when their actions are disruptive. -2012-03
Inappropriate behavior driven by good intentions is still inappropriate. Users acting in good faith may still be sanctioned when their actions are disruptive. -2009-09
Inappropriate behaviour driven by good intentions is still inappropriate. Editors acting in good faith may still be sanctioned when their actions are disruptive or otherwise violate policy. -2018-01
Inappropriate behaviour driven by good intentions is still inappropriate. Editors acting in good faith may still be sanctioned when their actions are disruptive. -2018-03
Inappropriate behaviour driven by good intentions is still inappropriate. Editors acting in good faith may still be sanctioned when their actions are disruptive. -2020-01
Good intentions
While good intentions do not justify misconduct, they may serve as a mitigating factor when sanctions are considered. A violation of policy committed in an honest—if misguided—attempt to advance Wikipedia's goals is more easily forgiven than an identical violation committed as part of an attempt to undermine the project. -2011-02
Guiding the community in protracted disputes
The occurrence of protracted, apparently insoluble disputes—whether they involve conduct, content, or policy—is contrary to the purposes of the project and damaging to its health. The chief purpose of the Arbitration Committee is to protect the project from the disruption caused by such disputes, and it has the authority to issue binding resolutions in keeping with that purpose. The Committee has traditionally concentrated its attention on conduct disputes, and has avoided issuing binding rulings that would directly resolve matters of content or policy, leaving those questions to the community at large. However, in cases where the community has proven unable to resolve those questions using the methods normally available to it, and where the lack of resolution results in unacceptable disruption to the project, the Committee may impose an exceptional method for reaching a decision. -2011-11
Harassment
It is prohibited by policy to disrupt an editor's participation on Wikipedia by making threats, making repeated unwanted contacts, making repeat personal attacks, engaging in intimidation, or posting personal information. -2013-11
Harassment is a pattern of offensive behavior that appears to a reasonable observer to have the purpose of adversely affecting one or more targeted persons, usually (but not always) for the purpose of threatening or intimidating them. The intended outcome may be to make editing Wikipedia unpleasant for targeted persons, to undermine them, to frighten them, or to discourage them from editing entirely. -2015-01, 2015-07
Editors must not harass other editors either on or off Wikipedia. Although some types of misconduct will clearly constitute harassment and warrant sanctions, in other cases whether harassment has occurred may be more borderline or subjective. The views and feelings of editors who believe in good faith that they are being or have been harassed are to be respected and fully considered, whether or not it is ultimately concluded that harassment actually occurred. Because the word "harassment" spans a wide variety of types of behavior, and because this word as used off-wiki can carry serious legal and human-resources overtones, at times it may be better to describe allegedly problematic on-wiki behavior such as "wikihounding" with more specific terminology. -2019-09
Wikipedia is created online. Editors are not required to engage in any way other than open on-wiki communication. Editors who welcome private communication typically post their preferred contact information on Wikipedia, sometimes enabling email through the Wikipedia interface; while email availability is encouraged, it is not mandatory. Contacting an editor using any other contact information, without first obtaining explicit permission, should be assumed to be uninvited and, depending on the context, may constitute harassment. Unexpected contact using personal information as described in Posting of personal information may be perceived as a threat to the safety and well-being of the person being contacted. -2020-04
Healthy and unhealthy conflict
Conflict is unavoidable and an inherent part of processes like the bold, revert, discuss cycle and deletion discussions. These processes work effectively when editors engage in healthy conflict by debating ideas, openly providing information, and seeking mutual understanding of an issue. Sniping criticism, ad hominem arguments, and incivility are harmful to other editors and the proper functioning of the encyclopedia. While healthy conflict is essential to building an encyclopedia, editors who engage in unhealthy conflict may be sanctioned. -2022-08 2023-05
High-speed editing
For the purposes of dispute resolution, whether an editor is engaging in "high-speed editing" (that is, the number of edits per minute) is irrelevant. Where editors have made a number of similar edits in a short time space and other editors have raised concerns about those edits, the editor is to stop making the edits and engage in discussion. -2017-09
Hounding
"Hounding" is the singling out of one or more editors, and joining discussions on pages or topics they may edit or debates where they contribute, in order to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work, with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance or distress to the other editor.
An editor's contribution history is public, and there are various legitimate reasons for following an editor's contributions, such as for the purposes of recent changes patrol, WikiProject tagging, or for dispute resolution purposes. Under certain circumstances, these activities can easily be confused with hounding.
Editors should at all times remember to assume good faith before concluding that hounding is taking place, although editors following another editor's contributions should endeavor to be transparent and explain their actions wherever necessary in order to avoid mistaken assumptions being drawn as to their intentions. -2015-12
"Hounding" is the singling out of one or more editors, and joining discussions on pages or topics they may edit or debates where they contribute, in order to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work, with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance or distress to the other editor.An editor's contribution history is public, and there are various legitimate reasons for following an editor's contributions, such as for the purposes of recent changes patrol, WikiProject tagging, or for dispute resolution purposes. Under certain circumstances, these activities can easily be confused with hounding.Editors should at all times remember to assume good faith before concluding that hounding is taking place, although editors following another editor's contributions should endeavour to be transparent and explain their actions wherever necessary in order to avoid mistaken assumptions being drawn as to their intentions. -2015-07
Identifying banned users
Creating accounts ("sockpuppetry") or otherwise evading bans through editing whilst logged out is prohibited. New or anonymous editors whose only edits demonstrate very similar behaviours to a banned user, especially one with a history of evading their ban, are indistinguishable from the banned user. Depending on the behaviours demonstrated, a sockpuppet investigation may not be required to identify the banned user. -2014-10
Ignore all rules
From the earliest days of Wikipedia, one of the project's central tenets has been "Ignore all rules: If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." Because "IAR" actions are, by definition, taken outside the ordinary policies and guidelines, it is impossible to state in advance when they will be appropriate. However, ignoring all rules is most likely to be warranted when dealing with an unanticipated or emergency situation. Conversely, taking an action based on IAR is less likely to be warranted when there has been a consensus that that sort of action should not be allowed. -2018-12
Importance and application of the BLP policy
There is widespread agreement in the Wikipedia community regarding the importance of the biographies of living persons policy. The policy has been adopted and since its inception repeatedly expanded and strengthened by the community. In addition, the Arbitration Committee has previously reaffirmed the values expressed through that policy. Fundamental values and practices concerning biographical content has been emphasised in a resolution of the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees and were also expanded and strengthened. If an editor wishes to restore content removed in good faith under the policy, the burden of proof is on those who wish to retain, restore, or undelete the disputed material. Restoring the original content without significant change requires consensus. -2016-06
Interaction bans
Interaction bans are intended to stop conflicts between two or more editors that cannot be otherwise resolved from getting out of hand and disrupting the work of others. Although the editors are generally allowed to edit the same pages or discussions as long as they avoid each other, they are not allowed to interact with each other in any way (aside from the standard exceptions). This includes making reference to the other editor (directly or indirectly), and undoing edits by the other user (whether by use of the revert function or by other means). -2015-12
Internationalism
Wikipedia is a collaborative project that depends on volunteers located around the world. While English is the language of this wiki, there are many national and regional dialects of English. Editors should be aware that their local colloquialisms may be interpreted in an entirely different way by the majority of the project. Particularly in community discussions, a less colloquial "universal English" is key to fostering a collaborative environment. -2012-02
Interpersonal conflict
Wikipedia is not a forum for the creation or furtherance of grudges and personal disputes. A history of bad blood, poor interactions, and heated altercations between users can complicate attempts to reach consensus on substantive content issues. Inflammatory accusations often perpetuate disputes, poison the well of existing discussions, and disrupt the editing atmosphere. Discussions should be held with a view toward reaching a solution that can gain a genuine consensus. Attempting to exhaust or drive off editors who disagree through hostile conduct, rather than use of legitimate dispute-resolution methods pursued only when legitimately necessary, is destructive to the consensus process and is not acceptable. See also Wikipedia is not a battleground. -2014-04
Involved administrators
Administrator tools are not to be used in connection with disputes in which the administrator is involved. In circumstances where an administrator is involved, the administrator should not take administrative action but should instead report the issue to a relevant noticeboard, perhaps with a suggestion for appropriate action, to be dealt with by another administrator. In limited circumstances, such as blatant vandalism or bad-faith harassment, an involved administrator may act, but such exceptions are likely to be rare. -2016-06
Administrators are expected not to take administrator actions arising from disputes in which they themselves are involved. See Wikipedia:Administrators#Involved admins. As a specific and clear application of this rule, an administrator who is a party to a pending arbitration case may not block another editor who is a party to the same case, particularly when the case arose in large measure from disputes between the two of them. -2011-08
Jurisdiction
The Arbitration Committee has jurisdiction only over the behavior of editors on the English Wikipedia. -2018-07
While the Arbitration Committee may take note of off-wiki behavior for the purposes of settling on-wiki disputes, restricting the behavior of users off-wiki is not within its remit. -2018-07
The Arbitration Committee has jurisdiction only over the behavior of editors on the English Wikipedia. While the Arbitration Committee may take note of off-wiki behavior for the purposes of settling on-wiki disputes and in its remedies, restricting the off-wiki behavior of users is not within its remit. -2022-03, 2022-04
Jurisdiction of the Arbitration Committee
Per the Arbitration Policy, the Arbitration Committee has no jurisdiction outside the English Wikipedia. However, the Committee may take notice of conduct outside its jurisdiction when making decisions about conduct on the English Wikipedia, if such outside conduct impacts or has the potential to impact adversely upon the English Wikipedia or its editors. -2013-11
The Committee retains jurisdiction over prior cases, in this instance, the American Politics case. -2015-06
The Committee retains jurisdiction over prior cases, in this instance, the Palestine-Israel articles case. -2015-11
The Committee retains jurisdiction over prior cases, in this instance, the three previous cases related to Palestine-Israel articles: Palestine-Israel articles, West Bank - Judea and Samaria, and Palestine-Israel articles 3. -2019-12
The Arbitration Committee has jurisdiction over conduct on the English Wikipedia and retains jurisdiction over all matters previously heard, including associated enforcement processes. While the Arbitration Committee may take notice of behavior outside of the English Wikipedia, we cannot restrict behavior which occurs outside of the English Wikipedia. –2023-03
Knowledge of policy
Administrators are generally expected to know policy and to keep abreast of its developments.Occasional errors or deviation from community expectations in the interpretation or application of policy are to be expected, and are not incompatible with adminship provided that the admin is willing to accept community feedback when the situation arises, and modify his or her conduct accordingly. However, serious or repeated breaches or an unwillingness to accept feedback from the community may be grounds for the removal of administrative tools. -2014-01
Lead sections
In accordance with WP:LEAD, the opening paragraphs of a Wikipedia article should be an "introduction to the article and a summary of its most important aspects", "able to stand alone as a concise overview", and "written in a clear, accessible style with a neutral point of view to invite a reading of the full article." While the lead of an article, or its first sentence in particular, is an important facet of an article to improve, improvements to the lead of an article should fundamentally flow from the content of the article, itself compliant with Wikipedia content policies, and not from efforts to advance any particular point of view. -2011-11
Leading by example
Administrators are expected to lead by example and to behave in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with others. While such an ideal applies to interactions with all editors, it is particularly relevant to interactions with newer and inexperienced users, as in those cases administrators provide a public face to both the broader administrative corps and to Wikipedia as a whole. -2020-02
Administrators are expected to lead by example and to behave in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with others. While such an ideal applies to interactions with all editors, it is particularly relevant to interactions with newer and inexperienced users, as in those cases, administrators provide a public face to both the broader administrative corps and to Wikipedia as a whole. -2020-02, 2021-03, 2022-12
Administrators are expected to lead by example and to behave in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with others. Administrators provide a public face to both the broader administrative corps and to Wikipedia as a whole. –2023-07
Learning from experience
Administrators are expected to learn from experience. When an administrator's action is overturned by the community, the administrator whose action was overturned is expected to consider why others disagreed with the action, and take this into account in future decision-making. Administrators should avoid taking personal offense to their action being overturned, or to feedback given to them regarding their action(s); over time, every active administrator working anywhere on the project can expect to have some of his or her administrator actions disagreed with or overturned, just as every arbitrator sometimes finds himself or herself in the minority on an issue voted on by the Committee. -2012-07
Levels of consensus
Where there is a global consensus to edit in a certain way, it should be respected and cannot be overruled by a local consensus. However, on subjects where there is no global consensus, a local consensus should be taken into account. -2013-09
Where there is a global consensus to edit in a certain way, it should be respected and cannot be overruled by a local consensus. Local consensus cannot override site policy. However, on subjects where there is no global consensus, a local consensus should be taken into account. -2014-01
Local consensus among a limited group of editors, such as through a Wikiproject or talk page discussion, does not override wider community consensus. Advice pages that have not been accepted as a policy or guideline should be treated as essays. -2020-06
Limitations of arbitration
Despite superficial similarities, Wikipedia Arbitration is not, and does not purport to be, a legal system comparable to courts or regulatory agencies. While the Committee strives for fairness, the system has limitations. Evidence is generally limited to what can be found and presented online. The disclosure of information cannot be compelled and witnesses cannot be cross-examined. Furthermore, only issues directly affecting the English Wikipedia can be considered and resolved. Arbitration decisions should be read with these limitations in mind and should not be used, or misused, by any side in connection with any off-wiki controversy, dispute, allegation, or proceeding. -2015-01
Despite employing more formal procedures than other aspects of Wikipedia, Wikipedia Arbitration is not and does not purport to be a legal system comparable to courts or regulatory agencies. The Arbitration Committee strives for fairness in every case. However, the evidence is generally limited to what can be located and presented online, safeguards such as mandatory disclosure of information and cross-examination of witnesses are not available, and only issues directly affecting Wikipedia are considered and resolved. Arbitration decisions should be read with these limitations in mind and should not be taken out of context or misused by any side in connection with any off-wiki controversy, dispute, allegation, or proceeding. -2018-07
Despite employing more formal procedures than other aspects of Wikipedia, Wikipedia Arbitration is not and does not purport to be a legal system comparable to courts or regulatory agencies. The Arbitration Committee strives for fairness in every case. However, the evidence is generally limited to what can be located and presented online, safeguards such as mandatory disclosure of information and cross-examination of witnesses are not available, and only issues directly affecting Wikipedia and with-in the scope of the case are considered and resolved. Arbitration decisions should be read with these limitations in mind and should not be taken out of context or misused by any side in connection with any off-wiki controversy, dispute, allegation, or proceeding. -2023-05
Limitations of CheckUser
CheckUser is a technical tool that displays details about the edits or other logged actions made recently by an account, IP address, or IP address range. Although the tool can reveal information about the accounts and computers a person is using to edit, it is beyond the capability of CheckUser to determine with certainty what person is operating an account. –2022-12
Making allegations against other editors
An editor alleging misconduct by another editor is responsible for providing clear evidence of the alleged misconduct. An editor who is unable or unwilling to support such an accusation should refrain from making it at all. A claim of misconduct should be raised directly with the other user himself or herself in the first instance, unless there are compelling reasons for not doing so. If direct discussion does not resolve the issue, it should be raised in the appropriate forum for reporting or discussing such conduct, and should not generally be spread across multiple forums. Claims of misconduct should be made with the goal of resolving the problem, not of impugning another editor's reputation. -2014-04, 2014-04, 2014-12
An editor alleging misconduct by another editor is responsible for providing clear evidence of the alleged misconduct. An editor who is unable or unwilling to support such an accusation should refrain from making it at all. A claim of misconduct should be raised directly with the other user in the first instance, unless there are compelling reasons for not doing so. If direct discussion does not resolve the issue, it should be raised in the appropriate forum for reporting or discussing such conduct, and should not generally be spread across multiple forums. Claims of misconduct should be made with the goal of resolving the problem, not of impugning another editor's reputation. -2015-06
An editor who alleges misconduct by another editor is responsible for providing clear evidence of that misconduct. An editor who is unable or unwilling to support such an accusation should refrain from making the accusation at all. A claim of misconduct should initially be raised directly with the other user, unless there are very compelling reasons for not doing so. If direct discussion does not resolve the issue, it should be raised in the appropriate forum for reporting or discussing misconduct. Claims of misconduct should be made with the goal of resolving the problem, not of impugning another editor's reputation. Such allegations should not be raised repeatedly across multiple forums as this breaches the policy on forum shopping. -2015-07
Manipulation of search engine results
It is an extremely serious abuse of Wikipedia to utilize editorial and structural features of the site—such as internal links, external links, and templates—in an attempt to inequitably or artificially manipulate search engine results. This is particularly so where the purpose is to disparage a living person. -2011-09
Mathematics (use of sources)
If editors disagree on how to express a problem and/or solution in mathematics, citations to reliable published sources that both are directly related to the topic of the article and directly support the material as presented must be supplied by the editor(s) who wishes to include the material. Novel derivations, applications or conclusions that cannot be supported by sources are likely to constitute original research within the definition used by the English Wikipedia. -2011-03
Meatpuppetry
Requesting that another editor perform an action that, if one would have done it oneself, would have been clearly against policy is meatpuppetry and is a form of gaming the system. While it is possible that more than one editor would have independently chosen to act the same way, attempts to coordinate such behavior is improper on its own as it seeks to subvert the normal consensus building processes. -2009-12
Mediation
Mediation — whether formal or informal — is a voluntary process to help editors who are having a dispute. While it serves the valuable function of facilitating agreement between good faith participants, it cannot make binding decisions on contents or sanction users. -2010-08
Mentorship
Editors whose conduct is repeatedly problematic may enter into a mentorship arrangement with one or more experienced editors. The purpose of such an arrangement is to allow the protégé to improve their behaviour by advice and guidance. Editors who accept mentorship are expected to be receptive to the reasonable advice of their mentor, and failure to do so may be taken to mean that the associated conduct problems cannot be resolved by voluntary measures. -2012-06
Mentorship and similar arrangements
In certain limited circumstances, formal mentorship and similar voluntary and involuntary arrangements, may be suitable to provide advice and support to people involved in disputes, or needing advice on how to work collaboratively on Wikipedia. The long-term aim of such arrangements should be for those involved to improve their conduct and work collaboratively without the need, or with a reduced need, for such advice. Such mentorships or similar arrangements may be agreed to as an alternative to more serious remedies, such as bans or paroles, or they may be an end result of the dispute resolution process itself. Users may voluntarily place themselves under such arrangements, or be placed under such arrangements by the community, or by a ruling of the Arbitration Committee. Any such formal arrangements should be recorded and documented in an appropriate place. -2009-07
Mission
Wikipedia's mission is to build an encyclopedia that can be modified and distributed freely. To facilitate access to this information, we should provide as few barriers to its use and dissemination as possible. Additional information, such as metadata, aligns with the goals of the encyclopedia where it is not detrimental to our content or our scope. -2013-09
Misuse of sourcing
Misuse of sourcing guidelines by editors in a field is highly problematic. This is so not least because it can throw all past contributions to the area into question. Reviewing past contributions for compliance with sourcing guidelines can be extremely time-consuming and is hence a considerable drain on editor time and resources. -2011-11
National and territorial disputes and similar conflicts
Several of Wikipedia's most bitter disputes have revolved around national or ethnic conflicts such as rival national claims to disputed territories or areas. Editors working on articles on these topics may frequently have strong viewpoints, often originating in their own national or other backgrounds. Such editors may be the most knowledgeable people interested in creating Wikipedia content about the area or the dispute, and are permitted and encouraged to contribute if they can do so consistent with Wikipedia's fundamental policies. However, they should bear in mind while editing that they may consciously or unconsciously be expressing their views rather than editing neutrally. They should take this natural tendency into account while they are editing and participating in talkpage discussions. -2010-05
Several of Wikipedia's most bitter disputes have revolved around national or ethnic conflicts such as rival national claims to disputed territories or areas. Editors working on articles on these topics may frequently have strong viewpoints, often originating in their own national or other backgrounds. Such editors may be the most knowledgeable people interested in creating Wikipedia content about the area or the dispute, and are permitted and encouraged to contribute if they can do so consistent with Wikipedia's fundamental policies. However, conduct that furthers a preexisting dispute on Wikipedia should receive special attention from the community, up to and including sanctions. It is perfectly possible to present a balanced, accurate, and verifiable encyclopedia article about contentious issues or preexisting disputes. -2021-09, 2023-03 (as "National and territorial disputes")
Neutral Point of View
Wikipedia content must be presented from a neutral viewpoint. -2012-02
Neutral point of view
All Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view; that is, they must fairly portray all significant points of view on a subject in accordance with their prevalence. Wikipedia is a mirror for human knowledge: it seeks to reflect, and not distort, the current state of thought on a subject. -2009-07
All Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view, with all relevant points of view represented in reasonable proportion to their importance and relevance to the subject-matter of the article. Undue weight should not be given to aspects which are peripheral to the topic. Relying on synthesized claims, or other "original research", is also contrary to this principle. -2011-11
All Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view, with all relevant points of view represented in reasonable proportion to their importance and relevance to the subject-matter of the article. Undue weight should not be given to aspects that are peripheral to the topic. Original research and synthesized claims are prohibited. Use of a Wikipedia article for advocacy or promotion, either in favor of or against an individual, institution, or idea that is the subject of the article, is prohibited. -2014-04, 2014-04, 2015-01, 2022-03
Article content must be presented from a neutral point of view. Where different scholarly viewpoints exist on a topic, those views enjoying a reasonable degree of support should be reflected in article content. An article should fairly represent the weight of authority for each such view, and should not give undue weight to views held by a relatively small minority of commentators or scholars. -2011-04, 2015-03
Because Wikipedia is intended to be written from a neutral point of view, it is necessary that conflicts of interest are properly disclosed, and articles or edits by conflicted editors are reasonably available for review by others. Editors are expected to comply with both the purpose and intent of the applicable policies, as well as their literal wording. -2018-01
All Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view, with all relevant points of view represented in reasonable proportion to their importance and relevance to the subject-matter of the article. Undue weight should not be given to aspects that are peripheral to the topic. Original research and synthesized claims are prohibited. A neutral point of view requires fair representation of all significant historical interpretations. This refers to legitimate differences in interpretation of the historical record, as opposed to views considered fringe, outdated, or significantly biased or inaccurate by the substantial consensus of reliable sources. -2018-08, 2019-09
Wikipedia adopts a neutral point of view, and advocacy for any particular viewpoint is prohibited. NPOV is a non-negotiable, fundamental policy, and requires that editors strive to (a) ensure articles accurately reflect all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources and (b) ensure that viewpoints are not given undue weight, and are kept in proportion with the weight of the source. -2009-10
Article content must be presented from a neutral point of view. Where different viewpoints exist on a topic, those views enjoying a reasonable degree of support should be reflected in article content, fairly representing the weight of authority for each view. -2010-05
Article content must be presented from a neutral point of view. Editors should ensure that the reporting of different views on a subject adequately reflects the relative levels of support for those views, and that it does not give a false impression of parity, or give undue weight to a particular view. -2011-03
Article content must be presented from a neutral point of view. Where different scholarly viewpoints exist on a topic, those views enjoying a reasonable degree of support should be reflected. An article should fairly represent the weight of authority for each such view, and should not give undue weight to views held by a relatively small minority of commentators or scholars. Similarly, undue weight should not be given to a particular aspect of a topic, to the detriment of a fair and balanced treatment of the topic as a whole. -2011-04
All Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view, with all relevant points of view represented in reasonable proportion to their importance and relevance to the subject-matter of the article. Undue weight should not be given to aspects that are peripheral to the topic. Original research and synthesized claims are prohibited. A neutral point of view requires fair representation of all significant historical interpretations. This refers to legitimate differences in interpretation of the historical record, as opposed to views considered fringe, outdated, or significantly biased or inaccurate by the substantial consensus of reliable sources. -2021-02
Neutral point of view and role of the Arbitration Committee
All Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view, with all significant viewpoints that have been published in reliable sources fairly represented in proportion to prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. While reasonable editors may, in good faith, disagree about the weight of particular viewpoints in reliable sources, it is not the role of the Arbitration Committee to settle such good-faith content disputes among editors. However, editors may not assign to a viewpoint a weight that is either so high or so low as to be outside the bounds of reasonableness; such actions violate the neutral point of view policy. -2013-06
Neutral point of view and sourcing
The requirement of the neutral point of view that points of view be represented fairly and accurately, and Wikipedia's nature as an encyclopaedia, demand that articles should always use the best and most reputable sources. A neutral point of view cannot be synthesised merely by presenting a plurality of opposing viewpoints, each derived from a polarised source. -2009-07
Neutral point of view and undue weight
All Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view, with all relevant points of view represented in reasonable proportion to their importance and relevance to the subject-matter of the article. Undue weight should not be given to aspects which are peripheral to the topic. Relying on synthesized claims, poor sources, or other "original research", is also contrary to this principle. -2011-09, 2014-12
All Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view, with all relevant points of view represented in reasonable proportion to their importance and relevance to the subject-matter of the article. Undue weight should not be given to aspects which are peripheral to the topic. Relying on synthesized claims, poor sources, including opinion pieces, or original research is also contrary to this principle. -2021-09
Neutrality and conflicts of interest
Wikipedia adopts a neutral point of view, and advocacy for any particular view is prohibited. In particular, Wikipedia's conflict of interest guidelines strongly discourage editors contributing "in order to promote their own interests." Neutrality is non-negotiable and requires that, whatever their personal feelings or interests, all editors must strive to ensure articles accurately reflect all significant viewpoints published by reliable sources and give prominence to such viewpoints in proportion to the weight of the source. Editors may contribute to Wikipedia only if they comply with Wikipedia's key policies. -2010-10
Wikipedia adopts a neutral point of view, and advocacy for any particular view is prohibited. In particular, Wikipedia's conflict of interest guidelines strongly discourage editors contributing "in order to promote their own interests." Neutrality is non-negotiable and requires that, whatever their personal feelings, all editors must strive to ensure articles accurately reflect all significant viewpoints published by reliable sources and give prominence to such viewpoints in proportion to the weight of the source. Editors may contribute to Wikipedia only if they comply with Wikipedia's key policies. -2020-06
Neutrality and sources
All Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view. Merely presenting a plurality of viewpoints, especially from polarized sources, does not fulfill the neutral point of view. Articles should always verifiably use the best and most reputable sources, with prevalence in reliable sources determining proper weight. Relying on synthesized claims, or other "original research", is therefore contrary to the neutral point of view. The neutral point of view is the guiding editorial principle of Wikipedia, and is not optional. -2015-06, 2019-12
All Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view. Merely presenting a plurality of viewpoints, especially from polarized sources, does not fulfill the neutral point of view. Articles should always verifiably use the best and most reputable sources available, with prevalence in reliable sources determining proper weight. Relying on synthesized claims, or other "original research", is therefore contrary to the neutral point of view. The neutral point of view is the guiding editorial principle of Wikipedia, and is not optional. -2015-11
Neutrality in biographies of living persons
Material about living persons must be neutral with regards to the treatment of that person in reliable sources. It is expected that all content be duly weighted and scrupulously sourced. -2018-07
No expectation of perfection
While editors are expected to follow Wikipedia policies and practices to the best of their abilities, they are not expected to be perfect. However, they are expected to listen to feedback from others and, where appropriate, learn from it. Repeated and serious editing errors can be disruptive as they create unnecessary work for others. -2013-03
No personal attacks
Abusive, defamatory, or derogatory phrases based on race, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, age, religious or political beliefs, disability, ethnicity, nationality, etc. directed against another editor or a group of editors, is considered a personal attack. –2023-07
Non discrimination policy
The Wikimedia Foundation non-discrimination policy prohibits discrimination against users on the basis of race, color, gender, religion, national origin, age, disability, sexual orientation, or any other legally protected characteristics. -2014-12
Non-neutral editing, particularly of BLPs
An editor may have views or outside interests that affect his or her neutrality in editing in a given topic-area. These may include views creating a bias either in favor of or against persons, institutions, or ideas associated with the topic-area. Whether or not such views or outside interests rise to the level of a conflict of interest, non-neutral or tendentious editing often results where an article is edited primarily by editors who are either affiliated with a controversial person or idea, or by editors who are avowed rivals or enemies of the subject, are involved in off-wiki disputes with the subject, or are otherwise disdainful of the subject. Thus, editors who have a strongly negative view regarding the subject of an article, just like editors with a strongly positive view of the subject, should be especially careful to edit that article neutrally if they choose to edit it at all. -2014-04
Not a battleground
Wikipedia is not a battleground. It is not a place to hold grudges, import personal conflicts, or nurture hatred or fear. Making personal battles out of Wikipedia discussions goes directly against our policies and goals. In particular, making list of "opponents" or coordinating actions in order to drive off or punish perceived "adversaries" goes counter to the necessary collegiate atmosphere required to write an encyclopedia. -2009-12
Wikipedia is not a battleground. -2015-12
Off-wiki communication
While discussion of Wikipedia and editing in channels outside of Wikipedia itself (such as IRC, mailing lists, or web forums) is unavoidable and generally appropriate, using external channels for coordination of activities that, on-wiki, would be inappropriate is also improper. That such conversations can be, or are, done in secret makes it more difficult to detect but does not reduce the impropriety of holding them. -2009-12, 2022-04
Off-wiki conduct
A user's conduct outside of Wikipedia, including participation in websites or mailing lists in which Wikipedia or its contributors are discussed, is generally not subject to Wikipedia policies or sanctions, except in extraordinary circumstances such as those involving grave acts of overt and persistent harassment or threats or other serious misconduct. The factors to be evaluated in deciding whether off-wiki conduct may be sanctioned on-wiki include whether the off-wiki conduct was intended to, and did, have a direct and foreseeable damaging effect on the encyclopedia or on members of the community. -2009-12
The Committee may take notice of conduct outside its jurisdiction when making decisions about conduct on the English Wikipedia if such outside conduct impacts or has the potential to impact adversely upon the English Wikipedia or its editors. -2018-07
The harassment policy states: "Harassment of other Wikipedians in forums not controlled by the Wikimedia Foundation creates doubt as to whether an editor's on-wiki actions are conducted in good faith. Off-wiki harassment will be regarded as an aggravating factor by administrators and is admissible evidence in the dispute-resolution process, including Arbitration cases. In some cases, the evidence will be submitted by private email. As is the case with on-wiki harassment, off-wiki harassment can be grounds for blocking, and in extreme cases, banning. Off-wiki privacy violations shall be dealt with particularly severely."
In dealing with any incident of off-wiki harassment, there are at least two separate questions that must be answered: first, was there off-wiki harassment warranting an on-wiki consequence, and second, can the identity of the harasser be linked with sufficient certainty to a specific Wikipedia editor. There may be instances in which off-wiki harassment warranting an on-wiki sanction has unquestionably occurred, but the harassment cannot be linked, or cannot be linked with sufficient certainty, to a specific Wikipedia account. The fact that no on-wiki action is taken in such circumstances should not be interpreted as diminishing the community's or the Committee's disgust at acts of harassment or their commitment to combatting it. -2015-07
Off-wiki controversies and biographical material
An editor who is involved in an off-wiki controversy or dispute with another individual should generally refrain from editing articles related to that individual due to a potential conflict of interest. -2018-07
Offensive commentary
Repeated use of sarcasm, wordplay formulated to mock another user, casting aspersions on an identifiable group, or use of language that can reasonably be anticipated to offend a significant segment of the community is disruptive, particularly when it distracts from the focus of an ongoing discussion on communal pages such as those in the Wikipedia namespace. -2012-02
Repeated use of sarcasm, wordplay formulated to mock another user, casting aspersions on fellow editors, or use of language that can reasonably be anticipated to offend is disruptive, particularly when it distracts from the focus of an ongoing discussion. -2013-08
On-wiki and off-wiki behavior
Behaviour of editors on-wiki and off-wiki are not subject to the same standards. Conduct which may be considered acceptable in the open and transparent atmosphere of Wikipedia (i.e., on-wiki) may be controversial and even unacceptable if made off wiki, due to the lack of transparency. In a similar vein, off-wiki disclosure of personal information does not allow, or excuse, a third party to post it on-wiki. -2022-03 2023-05
Opening of arbitration cases
In virtually all cases, the Arbitration Committee opens a full-fledged arbitration case only where a request for a case is presented on Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests and arbitrators vote to open the case after considering comments from interested editors. In extraordinary situations, the Arbitration Committee may vote, by majority vote of the total number of active arbitrators, to open a case on its own motion without awaiting a formal request. This step will be taken only in serious situations where a dispute has come to the committee's attention through other means, it is apparent that no other means of dispute resolution will be sufficient to resolve it, it appears inevitable that a request for arbitration would be presented in the normal course, and the value of obtaining input from a request for arbitration is outweighed by factors such as avoiding delay or unnecessary hostility at the request stage. Instances in which the Arbitration Committee will open a case without a formal on-wiki request will be rare. -2009-12
Original research
Wikipedia defines "original research" as "facts, allegations, ideas, and stories not already published by reliable sources". In particular, analyses or conclusions not already published in reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy are not appropriate for inclusion in articles. -2010-08
Original research and synthesis
Wikipedia does not publish original thought. Articles may not contain any original synthesis, that is, a combination or analysis of published material that serves to advance a position not clearly stated by the sources. -2011-03
Oversight/suppression
Oversight, also known as suppression, provides a means to delete particularly sensitive revisions such that even ordinary administrators cannot see them. The ability to suppress, unsuppress, and view suppressed revisions is restricted to members of the oversight user group. From time to time, it is necessary to block editors who have posted suppressible information. These blocks are labeled as "oversight blocks" and administrators who are neither oversighters nor arbitrators must not reverse them without having first consulted the Oversighter team or the Arbitration Committee.
Material that has been suppressed is always considered private or sensitive and referencing it on wiki should be avoided. Queries about the action should be raised by email to a member of the Oversight team, or to the Arbitration Committee, and certainly not at high profile noticeboards. -2020-02
Oversight, also known as suppression, provides a means to delete particularly sensitive revisions such that even ordinary administrators cannot see them. The ability to suppress, unsuppress, and view suppressed revisions is restricted to members of the oversight user group. Use of this tool is considered a first resort, in order to reduce the harm from such information. From time to time, it is necessary to oversight block editors who have repeatedly posted suppressible information. Oversighters are expected to consult with the oversight team for all oversight blocks of registered editors and for any other suppressions when acting under the principle of first resort. -2024-04
Ownership
Wikipedia pages do not have owners who control edits to them. Instead, they are the property of the community at large and governed by community consensus. -2019-07, 2020-03
Ownership and stewardship
Wikipedia pages do not have owners who control edits to them. Instead, they are the property of the community at large and governed by community consensus. -2014-01, 2014-07
Ownership of content
Wikipedia pages and topic areas do not have owners that control content or edits to them, inclusive of both individual editors and groups of enthusiasts about a topic. Instead, content is determined by the community at-large and governed by community consensus. -2024-09
Page Protection: Disputes
Full page protection is specifically designed to address edit wars, content disputes, and disruption. During such protection, parties to any dispute about the page that is protected are encouraged to discuss the dispute on the talkpage. When protection expires or is reduced parties are expected to maintain discussion until consensus is reached on the talkpage. -2015-11
Paid editing
Paid editing, particularly commercial paid editing, on English Wikipedia has historically been controversial. The Wikimedia Foundation Terms of Use require that editors making contributions in return for payment must make certain disclosures on-wiki. Paid editors must comply with both the WMF Terms of Use as well as any more specific requirements contained in the relevant English Wikipedia policy. -2018-01
Paid editing, which involves editing Wikipedia in exchange for money or inducements, requires proper disclosure of employer, client, and affiliation. Users who are paid by an entity for publicity are considered paid editors, regardless of whether the payment was specifically for editing Wikipedia. Not all conflict of interest editing falls under paid editing. -2024-04
Paid editors and conflict of interest
A paid editor has a potential conflict of interest with any article or subject that their firm has been retained to edit, even if they were not directly paid to take action in relation to that specific article or subject. -2018-01
Participation
The determination of proper consensus is vulnerable to unrepresentative participation from the community. Because of the generally limited number of editors likely to participate in any given discussion, an influx of biased or partisan editors is likely to generate an improper illusion of a consensus where none (or a different one) would exist in a wider population. -2009-12
Participation on arbitration pages
Policy states: "All editors are required to act reasonably, civilly, and with decorum on arbitration case pages, and may face sanctions if they fail to do so." The pages associated with arbitration cases are primarily intended to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at a fair, well-informed, and expeditious resolution of each case. While grievances must often be aired during such a case, it is expected that editors will do so without being unnecessarily rude or hostile, and will respond calmly to allegations against them. Accusations of misbehaviour must be backed with clear evidence or not made at all. Editors who conduct themselves inappropriately during a case may be sanctioned by arbitrators or clerks including by warnings, blocks, or bans from further participation in the case. Behaviour during a case may be considered as part of an editor's overall conduct in the matter at hand. -2023-05
Participation on non-Wikipedia websites
A user's conduct outside of Wikipedia, including participation in websites or forums critical of Wikipedia or its contributors, is in most cases not subject to Wikipedia's norms and policies, except in extraordinary circumstances such as those involving acts of overt and persistent harassment or threats. Where such circumstances do exist, however, appropriate action including sanctions can be undertaken by either the community or by the Arbitration Committee. -2012-07
Patterns of behavior
Editors who have already been sanctioned for disruptive behavior may be sanctioned more severely if they thereafter repeat the same or similar behavior. -2014-04
Personalising disputes
In content disputes, editors must always comment on the content and not the contributor. Personalising content disputes disrupts the consensus-building process on which Wikipedia depends, and should be avoided. -2009-07
In content disputes, editors must always comment on the content and not the contributor. Personalising content disputes disrupts the consensus-building process on which Wikipedia depends. -2021-02, 2021-09
Pillars
Wikipedia articles must be neutral, verifiable and must not contain original research. Those founding principles (the Pillars) are not negotiable and cannot be overruled, even when apparent consensus to do so exists. -2010-08
Policy and guidelines
A higher standard for participation and consensus exists for changes to policies and guidelines, as stated in Wikipedia:Consensus#Level of consensus. -2012-03
Policy pages
Wikipedia's policies and guidelines are meant to codify existing best practices. While edits to policy pages are often prompted by specific editing experiences, it is inappropriate to alter policy pages to further one's position in a specific dispute. -2011-11
Preexisting disputes
Issues that are contentious in real life are likely to be so on Wikipedia. However, Wikipedia does not permit the animosity arising from disputed issues to affect the neutrality of encyclopedia articles or the standards of behavior expected from contributors. Conduct that furthers a preexisting dispute on Wikipedia should receive special attention from the community, up to and including sanctions. It is perfectly possible to present a balanced, accurate, and verifiable encyclopedia article about contentious issues or preexisting disputes. -2021-02
Presumption of coordination
When a group of editors consistently and repeatedly participate in the same discussions to support the same point of view — especially when many or most of the members of that group had little or no prior participation in the underlying dispute — it is reasonable to presume that they could be coordinating their actions. Evaluation of consensus in particularly divisive or controversial cases need to carefully weigh the possibility and avoid ascribing too much weight to the number of participants in a discussion — especially when policy enforcement or sanctions are considered. -2009-12, 2022-04 (without italics on number)
Presumption of validity
For the purpose of applying the special rules against modifying or overturning an enforcement action (see Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions#Appeals and modifications), all enforcement actions are presumed valid and proper until an appeal is successful. -2015-08
Principle of Least Astonishment
The "principle of least astonishment" articulated by the Wikimedia Foundation in this resolution is one relevant principle that editors should take into account in deciding what images are appropriate for inclusion in a given article. -2012-02
Private evidence
The arbitration policy allows people to submit evidence privately in an arbitration case when there are compelling reasons for it not to be submitted publicly. When the Arbitration Committee admits privately-submitted evidence, existing policy requires a private hearing, where parties are "notified of the private hearing and be given a reasonable opportunity to respond to what is said about them before a decision is made." -2019-09
The Arbitration Committee is sensitive to the serious concerns created when private matters are brought to its attention. Such concerns exist for ethical and privacy reasons, and also for practical ones, such as how to ensure that an alleged communication is authentic, complete, and presented in its full context. The arbitration policy allows people to submit evidence privately in an arbitration case when there are compelling reasons for it not to be submitted publicly. –2022-12
Problematic editing
Contributors whose actions over a period of time are detrimental to the goal of creating a high-quality encyclopedia may be asked to refrain from those actions, when other efforts to address the issue have failed, even when their actions are undertaken in good faith. -2013-03
Contributors whose actions over a period of time are detrimental to the goal of creating a high-quality encyclopedia may be prohibited from taking those actions in future, even when their actions are undertaken in good faith. -2013-12
Processes and bureaucracy
Wikipedia project pages and processes may acquire associated procedures and bureaucracy to aid co-ordination, but they do not have owners who control changes to them. Instead, they are the property of the community at large and governed by community consensus. -2014-01
Proportionality of sanctions
No matter who is the sanctioning authority, any sanctions imposed on an editor or administrator for misconduct should be proportionate to the nature and severity of the conduct. Relevant factors to consider may also include how recently the misconduct took place, how clear it is that the behavior constituted misconduct, whether the editor has expressed or carried out an intent to improve their conduct, and whether lesser sanctions have been employed without success in trying to resolve the problem. For example, a lengthy site-ban will usually not be the appropriate sanction for on-wiki conduct by an experienced, good-faith contributor who has never previously been blocked at all. -2019-09
Proposed deletion
Proposed deletion (PROD) is a streamlined process for nominating an article for deletion. It should only be used for obvious and uncontroversial deletions where no opposition is expected. Proposed deletions are subject to the deletion policy, which requires that alternatives to deletion are considered before nomination. A prior search for more sources to establish notability is not required but considered good practice when the main concern is lack of notability or sources. -2020-02, 2022-08
Purpose of Wikipedia
The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among contributors. Use of the site for other purposes, such as advocacy or propaganda, furtherance of outside conflicts, publishing or promoting original research, and political or ideological struggle, is prohibited. -2009-12, 2010-03, 2011-03, 2011-04
The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of cameraderie and mutual respect among the contributors. -2010-10
The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content online encyclopedia. This is best achieved in an atmosphere of collegiality, camaraderie, and mutual respect among contributors. Use of the site for other purposes, such as advocacy or propaganda, the furtherance of outside conflicts, publishing or promoting original research, and political or ideological struggle, is prohibited. -2011-11
The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among contributors. Contributors whose actions are detrimental to that goal may be asked to refrain from them, even when these actions are undertaken in good faith; and good faith actions, where disruptive, may still be sanctioned. -2012-02, 2015-08, 2015-12, 2017-03, 2017-09, 2017-10, 2019-05, 2022-08
The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among contributors. Contributors whose actions are detrimental to that goal may be asked to refrain from them, even when these actions are undertaken in good faith; and good faith actions, where disruptive, may still be sanctioned. Use of the site for other purposes—including, but not limited to, advocacy, propaganda, or furtherance of outside conflicts—is prohibited. -2012-07, 2015-07
The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content online encyclopedia. This is best achieved in an atmosphere of collegiality, camaraderie, and mutual respect among contributors. -2013-03, 2014-01, 2014-07, 2014-12, 2019-07, 2021-02, 2021-09, 2023-03, 2023-12
The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopaedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among the contributors. Contributors whose actions are detrimental to that goal may be asked to refrain from them, even when these actions are undertaken in good faith; and when disruptive, those contributors may be sanctioned. Use of the site for other purposes—including, but not limited to, advocacy, propaganda, furtherance of outside conflicts, and political or ideological struggle—is prohibited. -2013-06
The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among contributors. Use of the site for other purposes, such as advocacy or propaganda, furtherance of outside conflicts, or publishing or promoting original research is prohibited. Contributors whose actions are detrimental to that goal may be asked to refrain from them, even when these actions are undertaken in good faith. -2013-11, 2014-04, 2014-04
The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among contributors. Use of the site for other purposes, such as advocacy or propaganda or furtherance of outside conflicts is prohibited. Contributors whose actions are detrimental to that goal may be asked to refrain from them, even when these actions are undertaken in good faith. -2014-10, 2015-06, 2015-06, 2015-11, 2018-01, 2019-12
The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among contributors. Use of the site for other purposes, such as advocacy or propaganda or furtherance of outside conflicts, is prohibited. Contributors whose actions are detrimental to the objectives of Wikipedia may be asked to refrain from them, even when these actions are undertaken in good faith. -2014-12, 2015-01
The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among contributors. Use of the site for other purposes, such as advocacy or propaganda, furtherance of outside conflicts, or publishing or promoting original research is prohibited. Contributors whose actions are detrimental to that goal may be asked to refrain from them, even when these actions are undertaken in good faith. -2015-03
The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among contributors. Use of the site for other purposes, such as advocacy or propaganda or furtherance of conflicts, is prohibited. Contributors whose actions are detrimental to that goal may be asked to refrain from them, even when these actions are undertaken in good faith. -2015-05
The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among contributors. Use of the site for other purposes, such as advocacy or propaganda or furtherance of outside conflicts is prohibited. Contributors whose actions are detrimental to that goal may be asked to refrain from them, even when these actions are are undertaken in good faith. -2015-08, 2015-12
The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among the contributors. Anyone may edit, use, modify and distribute the content for any purpose and the re-use of the information should be facilitated, where it is not detrimental to the encyclopedia. -2018-03
The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among contributors. Use of the site for other purposes, such as advocacy or propaganda, furtherance of outside conflicts, and promotion of political or ideological struggle, is prohibited. Contributors whose actions are detrimental to that goal may be asked to refrain from them or placed under sanctions, even when these actions are undertaken in good faith. -2018-07
The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among contributors. Contributors whose actions are detrimental to that goal may be asked to refrain from them, even when these actions are undertaken in good faith; and good faith actions, where disruptive, may still result in sanctions. -2018-12, 2020-01, 2020-04, 2020-06
The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among contributors. Contributors whose actions are detrimental to that goal may be asked to refrain from them, even when these actions are undertaken in good faith; good-faith actions, where disruptive, may still be sanctioned. -2024-04
The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of cameraderie and mutual respect among contributors. -2009-07
The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among contributors. Use of the site for other purposes, such as soapboxing, advocacy or propaganda, furtherance of outside conflicts, publishing or promoting original research, and political or ideological struggle, is prohibited. -2009-10
The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among contributors. Use of the site for other purposes, such as advocacy, propaganda, furtherance of outside conflicts, and political or ideological struggle, is prohibited. -2010-05
The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among contributors. Use of the project for other purposes—such as advocacy, propaganda, and the furtherance of philosophical, ideological or religious disputes—is prohibited. -2011-02
The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among contributors. Use of the encyclopedia to advance personal agendas—such as advocacy or propaganda and philosophical, ideological, religious or political dispute – or to publish or promote original research or fringe theories that have not gained widespread acceptance is prohibited. -2011-03
The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content online encyclopedia. This is best achieved in an atmosphere of collegiality, camaraderie, and mutual respect among contributors. Use of the site for other purposes, such as advocacy or propaganda, the furtherance of outside conflicts, publishing or promoting original research, and political or ideological struggle, is prohibited. -2011-04
The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among contributors. Contributors whose actions are detrimental to that goal may be asked to refrain from them, even when these actions are undertaken in good faith; and good faith actions, where disruptive, may still be sanctioned. Use of the site for other purposes—including, but not limited to, advocacy, propaganda, or furtherance of outside conflicts—is prohibited. -2012-07, 2015-07
The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among contributors. Contributors whose actions are detrimental to that goal may be asked to refrain from them, even when these actions are undertaken in good faith. -2013-08, 2018-03
The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among contributors. Anyone may edit, use, modify and distribute the content for any purpose and the re-use of the information should be facilitated, where it is not detrimental to the encyclopedia. -2013-09
The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among contributors. Use of the site for other purposes, such as advocacy or propaganda or furtherance of outside conflicts is prohibited. Contributors whose actions are detrimental to the objectives of Wikipedia may be asked to refrain from them, even when these actions are undertaken in good faith. -2014-12
The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among contributors. Use of the site for other purposes, such as advocacy or propaganda, furtherance of outside conflicts, or publishing or promoting original research is prohibited. Contributors whose actions are detrimental to that goal may be asked to refrain from them, even when these actions are undertaken in good faith. -2014-12
The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among the contributors. In particular, it is not the purpose of Wikipedia to right great wrongs; Wikipedia can only record what sources conclude has been the result of social change, but it cannot catalyze that change. -2015-12
The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among contributors. Use of the site for other purposes, such as advocacy or propaganda or furtherance of outside conflicts is prohibited. Contributors whose actions are detrimental to that goal may be asked to refrain from them, even when these actions are undertaken in good faith. -2018-08 -2023-05
The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among contributors. Contributors whose actions are detrimental to that goal may be asked to refrain from them, even when these actions are undertaken in good faith; and good faith actions, where disruptive, may still be subject to sanctions. -2020-03
The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among contributors. Contributors whose actions are detrimental to that goal may be asked to refrain from them, even when these actions are undertaken in good faith; and good faith actions, where disruptive, may still be sanctioned. -2022-08
Purpose of blocks
Blocks serve to protect the project from harm, and reduce likely future problems. They are meted out not as retribution but to protect the project and other users from disruption and inappropriate conduct, and to deter any future possible repetitions of inappropriate conduct. Blocking is one of the most powerful tools that are entrusted to administrators, who should be familiar with the circumstances prior to intervening and are required to be able to justify any block that they issue. In general, once a matter has become "cold" and the risk of present disruption has clearly ended, reopening it by blocking retrospectively is usually not appropriate. -2019-05
Purpose of sanctions
Users are sanctioned to stop disruptive conduct, usually in the hope that they will adjust their behaviour in response and continue to contribute to the project. Sanctions may be lifted on appeal if the committee is satisfied that the disruptive conduct will not be repeated. Where a sanction removes the administrator right, the user may regain it after demonstrating that they again have the community's trust through a successful request for adminship. In order for a user to adjust their behaviour, it must be clear what conduct led to the sanction. -2019-09
Quality of sources
Wikipedia content generally rests upon reliable secondary sources as these meet requisite standards for fact-checking, interpretation and context. More partisan sources may be useful for referencing individual or organisational viewpoints but are unlikely to be suitable for the sourcing of general statements in Wikipedia's "voice." Particular care is required when including partisan sources in the Biographies of Living Persons policy on the coverage of public figures, in order to avoid a misrepresentations of accuracy, neutrality or context. Controversial sourcing usually requires editorial consensus either on the article talkpage or at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. -2015-05
Questioning of administrative actions
Administrators are accountable for their actions involving administrative tools. As such, they are expected to respond appropriately to queries about their administrative actions and to justify them where needed. Criticism of the merits of administrative actions are acceptable within the bounds of avoiding personal attacks and civility. -2016-06
Administrators are accountable for their actions involving administrative tools. As such, they are expected to respond appropriately to queries about their administrative actions and to justify them where needed. Criticism of the merits of administrative actions are acceptable within the bounds of avoiding personal attacks and civility. -2012-07
Raising concerns
The Wikipedia community conducts almost all of its activities online, where people may fail to observe norms of professionalism and civility. From time to time, users may need to express concerns in clear, firm terms about another user's decisions or actions. This need is particularly important when expressing concerns about an administrator. However, Wikipedia provides several methods of escalating concerns about user conduct or administrator decisions. Users should make efforts to escalate appropriately, in line with our policy on civility; continually re-stating a concern is unlikely to produce an effective resolution. -2019-02
Recidivism
Users who have been sanctioned for improper conduct are expected to avoid repeating it should they continue to participate in the project. Failure to do so may lead to the imposition of increasingly severe sanctions. -2009-06, 2009-12, 2010-02, 2010-04, 2011-08, 2012-02, 2015-01
Editors who have already been sanctioned for disruptive behavior may be sanctioned more harshly for repeated instances of similar behaviors. -2014-04, 2014-10
Editors will sometimes make mistakes and suffer occasional lapses of judgement in well-meaning furtherance of the project's goals. However, strong or even exceptional contributions to the encyclopaedia do not excuse repeated violations of basic policy. Editors who have already been sanctioned for disruptive behavior may be sanctioned more harshly for repeated instances of similar behaviors. -2015-03
Editors sanctioned for disruptive behaviour are expected to improve their behaviour, should they continue to participate in the project. Sanctioned editors should be afforded assistance and reasonable time to improve (especially if they demonstrate the ability to engage positively with the community), but if their conduct does not improve they may be subject to increasingly severe sanctions. -2012-06, 2023-03, 2023-05
Editors will sometimes make mistakes and suffer occasional lapses of judgement from time to time in well-meaning furtherance of the project's goals. However, strong or even exceptional contributions to the encyclopedia do not excuse repeated violations of basic policy. Editors who have already been sanctioned for disruptive behavior may be sanctioned more harshly for repeated instances of similar behaviors. -2014-12
References to fellow editors
Editors are expected to refrain from making unnecessary references to the actual or perceived racial, religious, or ethnic background of fellow editors. Such references should be made only if they clearly serve a legitimate purpose. In the context of a noticeboard discussion or dispute resolution, it will rarely serve a valid purpose to seek to classify the participants in the discussion on this basis. -2011-04
Reinstating a reverted action ("wheel warring")
When another administrator has already reversed an administrative action, there is very rarely any valid reason for the original or another administrator to reinstate the same or similar action again without clear discussion leading to a consensus decision. (WP:WHEEL) -2012-07
Reinstating a sanction reversed out of process
The unilateral reinstatement of an enforcement action, which has been reversed out of process, does not constitute wheel warring, where the reversion has resulted in sanctions for the reversing administrator. -2015-12
Reliable sources
Editors should always try to use the most reliable sources available for any given topic, with the editorial oversight, fact-checking and bias within the source taken into consideration. Depending on the context, non-neutral or biased sources can be used if they are the best sourcing for information held on a subject. Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts or with no editorial oversight and should not be used for citing contentious claims. Where the use of questionable or biased sources is agreed to be appropriate, information about their nature should be indicated so that readers can judge their value. -2018-08
Remedies for biased editing
Where an editor's contributions, over a significant period of time and after repeated expressions of concerns, are reasonably perceived by many users to reflect bias and prejudice against the members of a racial, religious, or ethnic group, appropriate remedies or restrictions should be imposed. This does not necessarily require a finding that the editor is actually biased and prejudiced against any group or that the editor consciously intended to edit inappropriately. -2011-04
Remedies for non-neutral editing
Editors whose editing on an article or topic is persistently non-neutral may, after appropriate counseling or warnings, be banned from editing that article or on that topic. This is particularly, though by no means exclusively, appropriate where such non-neutral editing involves BLPs. -2014-04
Removal of administrative tools
As provided by the arbitration policy, the Arbitration Committee is empowered to handle requests for the removal of administrative tools. While such requests have usually been in relation to the administrator user rights, the Committee may hear requests for the removal of any advanced user right, which includes but is not limited to the bureaucrat, checkuser, and oversight user rights. -2024-04
Removal of material about living persons
The policy on biographies of living persons requires that non-compliant material be removed if the non-compliance cannot readily be rectified. The policy does not impose any limitations on the nature of the material to be removed, provided that the material concerns a living person, and provided that the editor removing it is prepared to explain their rationale for doing so.
Once material about a living person has been removed on the basis of a good-faith assertion that such material is non-compliant, the policy requires that consensus be obtained prior to restoring the material. -2013-10
Repeated behavior
Editors who have been sanctioned or warned, whether by the Arbitration Committee or the community, for improper conduct are expected to avoid further conduct that is inconsistent with Wikipedia's expectations. Repeated failure to demonstrate appropriate conduct may result in the editor's being subject to increasingly severe sanctions. -2020-04
Editors who have been sanctioned or warned, whether by the Arbitration Committee or the community, for improper conduct are expected to avoid further conduct that is inconsistent with Wikipedia's expectations. Repeated failure to demonstrate appropriate conduct may result in the editors being subject to increasingly severe sanctions. -2022-08
Repeated behaviour
Editors who have been sanctioned, whether by the Arbitration Committee or the community, for improper conduct are expected to avoid conduct which is below Wikipedia's expectations. Failure to demonstrate appropriate conduct may result in the editor being subject to increasingly severe sanctions. -2017-09
Editors who have been sanctioned or warned, whether by the Arbitration Committee or the community, for improper conduct are expected to avoid conduct which is inconsistent with Wikipedia's expectations. Repeated failure to demonstrate appropriate conduct may result in the editor being subject to increasingly severe sanctions. -2018-03
Repeated discussion
Subsequent attempts at discussion of a topic previously settled by community discussion are often initiated by those not initially achieving their desired outcome. Those satisfied with the previous outcome are less likely to re-engage in subsequent discussions, creating an inappropriate bias toward change in subsequent discussions of the topic. -2011-11
Repetition of improper conduct
Users who have been sanctioned or legitimately criticized for improper conduct are expected to avoid repeating that behavior in their continued participation in the project. Similarly, a user who has promised to discontinue a certain type of problematic behavior on-wiki must make every effort to avoid returning to that pattern of behavior. Failure or inability to do so may necessitate imposing further restrictions or sanctions, or in the most serious cases, loss of the privilege of participating in the project. -2009-07
Responding to feedback
[was 8] Occasional errors or deviation from community expectations regarding standards of behaviour or in the interpretation or application of policy are to be expected, and are not incompatible with participation in the project provided that the editor is willing to accept community feedback when the situation arises, and modify their conduct accordingly. However, serious or repeated breaches or an unwillingness to accept feedback from the community (Wikipedia:I didn't hear that) may be grounds for sanction. In cases of serious or repeated misconduct by a user with advanced permissions, the tools may be removed, whether or not the misconduct involved direct abuse of the permissions. -2015-08
Responding to harassment
An editor who is harassed and attacked by others – or who genuinely perceives themselves to be harassed or attacked – whether on Wikipedia or off, should not see that harassment as an excuse for fighting back and attacking those who are criticising them. Editors should report on-wiki harassment to administrators and off-wiki harassment by email to the Arbitration Committee. Administrators should be sensitive in dealing with harassed editors who have themselves breached acceptable standards. -2018-12
An editor who is harassed and attacked by others – or who genuinely perceives himself or herself to have been harassed or attacked—whether on Wikipedia or off—should not see that harassment as an excuse for violating Wikipedia policy. Editors should report on-wiki harassment to administrators and off-wiki harassment by email to the Arbitration Committee and/or to the Wikimedia Foundation Office. Administrators should be sensitive in dealing with harassed editors who have themselves breached acceptable standards, especially where the harassment has been protracted or severe. -2015-07
An editor who is harassed and attacked by others, or who genuinely perceives themself to have been harassed or attacked—whether on Wikipedia or off—should not see that harassment as an excuse for violating Wikipedia policy. Editors should report on-wiki harassment to administrators and off-wiki harassment by email to the Arbitration Committee and/or to the Wikimedia Foundation Office. Administrators should be sensitive in dealing with harassed editors who have themselves breached acceptable standards, especially where the harassment has been protracted or severe. -2023-05
Return of access levels
Users who give up their administrator (or other) permissions and later request the return of those permissions may have them restored upon request, provided they did not give them up under circumstances of controversy. Users who give up permissions under controversial circumstances must go through the normal channels (such as a request for adminship) to regain them. Determining whether an administrator resigned under controversial circumstances is, in most cases, in the discretion of the bureaucrats. However, an administrator who requests desysopping while an arbitration case or a request for arbitration is pending against him or her will be deemed to have left under circumstances of controversy, unless the Arbitration Committee decides otherwise, for purposes of applying this rule. (RfAr:MZMcBride April 2009) -2010-02
Return of administrator tools
Users who give up their administrator (or other) permissions and later return and request them back may have them returned automatically, provided they did not leave under controversial circumstances. Users who do leave under controversial circumstances must go through the normal channels to get them back. This is generally to be left up to bureaucrats' discretion, but an administrator who requests removal of permissions while an arbitration case or a request for arbitration is pending against him or her will generally be deemed to have resigned under controversial circumstances unless otherwise noted. -2012-07
Reversal of administrative actions
Administrators are expected to have good judgment, and are presumed to have considered carefully any actions or decisions they carry out as administrators. Administrators may disagree, but except for clear and obvious mistakes, administrative actions should not be reversed without good cause, careful thought and, if the reversal is likely to be objected to, some kind of courtesy discussion. -2012-07
Reversing actions by other administrators
In a non-emergency situation, administrators are expected to refrain from undoing each others' administrative actions without first attempting to resolve the dispute by means of discussion. -2018-12
In a non-emergency situation, administrators are expected to refrain from undoing each others' administrative actions without first attempting to resolve the dispute by means of discussion with the initiating administrator, even in the face of an ongoing community discussion. In a situation where there is an ongoing community discussion, administrators should refrain from undoing another administrator's actions until consensus has become clear. –2022-11
Review of community sanctions
As stated in §1.1 of the arbitration policy, the Arbitration Committee is responsible for "hear[ing] appeals from blocked, banned, or otherwise restricted users", including users subject to sanctions imposed by the community.
In certain circumstances, the Committee may overturn or reduce a sanction imposed by the community. Such circumstances include, but are not limited to, cases where (1) some aspect of the community discussion was procedurally unfair, (2) the sanction imposed appears to be significantly excessive or overbroad, (3) circumstances have changed significantly since the community sanction was imposed, or (4) non-public information that should not be addressed on-wiki, such as personal information or checkuser data, is relevant to the decision. -2012-02
Reviewing practices
Reviewing the edits of an editor where there are concerns may be necessary, but if not carried out in the proper manner may be perceived as a form of harassment. Relevant factors include whether an editor's contributions are viewed as problematic by multiple other editors or the community at large; whether the concerns are raised appropriately and clearly on talk pages or noticeboards; and ultimately, whether the concerns raised reasonably appear to be motivated by good-faith, substantiated concerns about the quality of the encyclopedia, rather than personal animus against a particular editor. When an editor contributes only in a narrow topic area, it may not be possible to distinguish between a review of that topic area, and a review of that editor's contributions. -2013-11, 2014-12
RfC/U and dispute resolution
A user-conduct request for comment ("RfC/U") represents a forum in which editors may raise concerns about the conduct of a fellow editor or administrator. Although this procedure can be misused, when utilized in good faith, it presents an editor with the opportunity to learn that concerns exist about his or her conduct, respond to the concerns, and if appropriate adjust his or her conduct. RfCs should not be used abusively, nor should the concerns raised in an RfC be ignored. -2012-07
Role of consensus in arbitration enforcement
Although administrators do not need explicit consensus to enforce arbitration decisions and can always act unilaterally, when the case is not clear-cut they are encouraged, before acting, to seek input from their colleagues at arbitration enforcement. In addition, when a consensus of uninvolved administrators is emerging in a discussion, administrators willing to overrule their colleagues should act with caution and must explain their reasons on request. Administrators overruling their colleagues without good cause may be directed to refrain from further participation in arbitration enforcement. -2015-08
Role of the Arbitration Committee
It is not the role of the Arbitration Committee to settle good-faith content disputes among editors. -2009-07, 2010-02, 2010-10, 2011-11, 2014-04, 2014-04, 2015-06, 2015-11, 2015-11, 2019-12, 2020-01, 2020-03, 2020-06
The role of the committee is to act as a final binding decision-maker primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve (§ Arbitration Policy). Content areas the committee has previously ruled on are often thereafter subject to ongoing special enforcement arrangements, such as discretionary sanctions. From time to time the committee may revisit these enforcement systems – in order to, for example, clarify ambiguities or to evaluate whether they remain necessary. -2015-08
The role of the committee is to act as a final binding decision-maker primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. Content areas the committee has previously ruled on are often thereafter subject to ongoing special enforcement arrangements, such as discretionary sanctions. From time to time the committee may revisit these enforcement systems – in order to, for example, clarify ambiguities or to evaluate whether they remain necessary. -2015-12
It is not the role of the Arbitration Committee to settle good-faith content disputes among editors. However, an editor's continuing to edit or threaten to edit against a clear consensus—after appropriate discussion, warnings, and the use of applicable dispute resolution methods—may cross the line into disruptive editing that constitutes a conduct (rather than exclusively content) issue and may be grounds for sanctions. -2011-04
It is not the role of the Arbitration Committee to resolve good-faith editorial disputes among editors. The Committee's role does extend to evaluating allegedly improper user conduct, which in serious cases may include persistent non-neutral editing or BLP violations, or a pattern of making unsupported allegations and personal attacks. In general, the Committee requires that earlier methods of dispute resolution have been attempted before a dispute will be accepted for arbitration. -2011-09
Although the Arbitration Committee can be useful in disputes about content by clarifying the core issues and providing for a resolution, its role is not to adjudicate such disputes. -2012-02
It is not the Arbitration Committee's role to settle good-faith content disputes among editors. -2013-12
It is not the role of the Arbitration Committee to settle good-faith content disputes among editors. -2018-08
Wikipedia makes use of this committee to handle "removal of administrative tools" and "serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve" (Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy § Scope and responsibilities). -2019-02
The role of the committee is to act as a final binding decision-maker primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. Content areas the committee has previously ruled on are sometimes designated as contentious topics or subject to ongoing special restrictions. As necessary, the Committee may revisit previous decisions and associated enforcement systems in order to review their effectiveness or necessity. –2023-03
The role of the committee is to act as a final binding decision-maker primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve (§ Arbitration Policy). From time to time the committee may revisit previous cases to review new allegations of editor misconduct and to examine the effectiveness of enforcement systems. It is not the purpose of the Arbitration Committee to settle good-faith content disputes nor to adjudicate outside criticism. -2023-05
Role of the Committee
It is not the role of the Arbitration Committee to rule on good-faith content disputes between editors. -2011-03
Rollback
Standard rollback is a fast way of undoing problematic edits, but it has the disadvantage that only a generic edit summary is generated, with no explanation of the reason for the change. For this reason, it is considered inappropriate to use it in situations where an explanatory edit summary would normally be expected. One of the ways in which it may be correctly used is to revert obvious vandalism and other edits where the reason for reverting is absolutely clear. Editors who misuse standard rollback (for example, by using it to reverse good-faith edits in situations where an explanatory edit summary would normally be expected) may have their rollback rights removed. Since rollback is part of the core administrator tools, an admin could be stripped of their administrative privileges entirely to remove those tools. –2023-07
Sanctions and circumstances
In deciding what sanctions to impose against an administrator or other editor, the Arbitration Committee will consider the editor's overall record of participation, behavioral history, and other relevant circumstances. An editor's positive and valuable contributions in one aspect of his or her participation on Wikipedia do not excuse misbehavior or questionable judgment in another aspect of participation, but may be considered in determining the sanction to be imposed. -2012-02, 2013-11, 2015-11, 2016-10, 2020-06
In deciding what sanctions to impose against a user, the Arbitration Committee will consider their overall record of participation, behavioral history, and other relevant circumstances. An editor's positive and valuable contributions in one aspect of their participation on Wikipedia do not excuse misbehavior or questionable judgment in another aspect of participation, but will be considered in determining the sanction to be imposed. -2015-12
In deciding what sanctions to impose against an administrator or other editor, the Arbitration Committee will consider the editor's overall record of participation, behavioural history, and other relevant circumstances. An editor's positive and valuable contributions in one aspect of his or her participation on Wikipedia do not excuse misbehaviour or questionable judgement in another aspect of participation, but may be considered in determining the sanction to be imposed. -2018-01
In deciding what sanctions to impose against an editor, the Arbitration Committee will consider the editor's overall record of participation, behavioral history, and other relevant circumstances. An editor's positive and valuable contributions in one aspect of his or her participation on Wikipedia do not excuse misbehavior or questionable judgment in another aspect of participation, but may be considered in determining the sanction to be imposed. -2014-12
In deciding what sanctions to impose against an editor, the Arbitration Committee will consider the editor's overall record of participation, behavioral history, and other relevant circumstances. An editor's positive and valuable contributions in one aspect of their participation on Wikipedia do not excuse misbehavior or questionable judgment in another aspect of participation, but may be considered in determining the sanction to be imposed. -2020-04
The role of the committee is to act as a final binding decision-maker for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. Content areas the committee has previously ruled on are sometimes designated as contentious topics or subject to ongoing special restrictions. As necessary, the Committee may revisit previous decisions and associated enforcement systems in order to review their effectiveness or necessity. -2025-01
Sandbox Merging
Improving an article on Wikipedia is always highly encouraged. The userspace exists so that users can work on an article that is not yet ready for publishing. Making large changes to current articles from the userspace without consensus, especially where the article is under a dispute or scrutiny, can be disruptive. -2015-11
Scientific notation
Articles containing units of scientific measurement should generally use the units and notations that are used most often by contemporary reliable sources within the field. Exceptions may be made for valid reasons, such as in historical contexts, or in articles concerning the units of measurement themselves. -2011-03
Scope of policy on biographies of living persons
The policy on biographies of living persons requires that all material concerning living persons in Wikipedia adhere strictly to Wikipedia's three core content policies (verifiability, neutrality, and avoidance of original research).
The policy is written in a deliberately broad fashion, and its application is not limited to unsourced or poorly sourced material. Any material about a living person that fails any of the three core content policies is non-compliant with the policy and is subject to removal as described therein. -2013-10
Scope of restrictions
Apart from the standard exceptions to limited bans, all restrictions apply to every edit made to the English language Wikipedia, explicitly including the ones made to one's own talk page or to Jimbo Wales' talk page. -2015-12
Scope of the Committee
It is within the scope of the Arbitration Committee to resolve matters unsuitable for public discussion for privacy, legal, or similar reasons. -2018-07
Scrutiny for off-wiki behavior
Editors who have publicly tied their Wikipedia usernames to other online or offline activities may become subject to on-wiki scrutiny of their off-wiki behavior that would impact adversely on the English Wikipedia. -2018-07
Seeking community input
Should a content discussion reach an impasse, wider input from previously uninvolved editors should be sought. Requests for such input should be made with neutral wording and through the processes designed to solicit community feedback on content issues, which may include a request for a third opinion, request for comment, or posting to the dispute resolution noticeboard. Input provided through one of these processes should be received appreciatively and given due consideration in the consensus-seeking process. -2014-04
Should a content discussion reach an impasse, wider input from previously uninvolved editors should be sought. Requests for such input should be made with neutral wording and through the processes designed to solicit community feedback on content issues, which may include a request for a third opinion, request for comment, or posting to the dispute resolution noticeboard. Input provided through one of these processes should be received appreciatively and given due consideration in the consensus-seeking process. -2014-04
Sensitivities of subject-matter
Wikipedia's policies and guidelines regarding article content apply to all pages of the encyclopedia. No topics are placed off limits, and "political correctness" is not required as a condition of editing. Nevertheless, certain subject-matters—such as articles discussing specific racial, religious, and ethnic groups, and the members of these groups identified as such—are by their nature more sensitive than others. It is especially important that editors working in these areas adhere to site policies and guidelines and to good encyclopedic practices. These include neutral editing as well as scrupulous sourcing, especially of controversial or disputed claims. -2011-04
Sensitivity towards living persons
The policy on biographies of living persons requires that editors act with a high degree of sensitivity and consider the possibility of harm to the subject when adding information about a living person to any Wikipedia page. This requirement is consistent with the Wikimedia Foundation's guidance that human dignity be taken into account when adding information about living persons to Wikimedia projects. -2013-10
Serious accusations
Due to the risk of harming current or past contributors in real life, users must be careful when accusing other editors of potentially damaging behavior. For example, claims of stalking, sexual harassment, or racism could harm an editor's job prospects or personal life, especially when usernames are closely linked to an individual's real name. These types of comments are absolutely never acceptable without indisputable evidence. "Serious accusations require serious evidence" such as "diffs and links presented on wiki." In the context of arbitration, such serious allegations should not be posted publicly in any case. Participants should instead use email or off-wiki communication when discussing the [serious accusation] with the Arbitration Committee. -2010-02
Serious harassment (limitations)
Neither the community nor the committee is well-equipped to deal with threats to health and safety, whether made on- or off-wiki. On-wiki steps are usually limited to reverting, page protection, and blocking. Additionally, the Wikimedia Foundation have issued guidelines for responding to threats of harm and there are links at "How to deal with harassment". Editors can also notify their local law enforcement. -2015-07
Single purpose accounts
Single purpose accounts are expected to contribute neutrally instead of following their own agenda and, in particular, should take care to avoid creating the impression that their focus on one topic is non-neutral, which could strongly suggest that their editing is not compatible with the goals of this project. -2009-09, 2010-08
Single purpose accounts and editors who hold a strong personal viewpoint on a particular topic covered within Wikipedia are expected to contribute neutrally instead of following their own agenda and, in particular, should take care to avoid creating the impression that their focus on one topic is non-neutral, which could strongly suggest that their editing is not compatible with the goals of this project. -2011-11
Single purpose accounts and editors who hold a strong personal viewpoint on a particular topic covered within Wikipedia are expected to contribute neutrally instead of following their own agenda. In particular, they should take care to avoid creating the impression that their focus on one topic is non-neutral, which could strongly suggest that their editing is not compatible with the goals of this project. -2015-01
Single purpose accounts are expected to contribute neutrally instead of following their own agenda and, in particular, should take care to avoid creating the impression that their focus on one topic is non-neutral, which could strongly suggest that their editing is incompatible with the goals of this project. -2015-11, 2015-11
Editors should contribute from a neutral point of view. Single-purpose accounts can create the impression that an editor is following their own agenda with a non-neutral focus on a single topic. Editors operating such an account should take care to ensure that their edits are compatible with the project's broader goal of writing an encyclopaedia. -2019-12
Single-purpose accounts
Single purpose accounts and editors who hold a strong personal viewpoint on a particular topic covered within Wikipedia are expected to contribute neutrally instead of following their own agenda and, in particular, should take care to avoid creating the impression that their focus on one topic is non-neutral, which could strongly suggest that their editing is not compatible with the goals of this project. -2014-12
Sober eyes
If a dispute becomes protracted or the subject of extensive or heated discussion, the views and comments of uninvolved contributors should be sought. Insulating a content dispute for long periods can lead to the disputants become entrenched, and so unresolvable questions of content should be referred at the first opportunity to the community at large—whether in a Request for Comment, Third Opinion, or other suitable mechanism for inviting comment from a new perspective. -2012-02
Sockpuppetry
The general rule is one editor, one account, though there are several legitimate uses of an alternate account. The creation or use of an additional account to conceal an editing history, to evade a block or a site ban, or to deceive the community, is prohibited. Sockpuppet accounts that are not publicly disclosed are not to be used in discussions internal to the project. -2015-06, 2015-11, 2019-12
[was 12) The general rule is one editor, one account. The creation or use of an additional account or IP address to conceal an editing history, to evade a block or a site ban, or to deceive the community, is prohibited. -2015-07
Source manipulation is a conduct issue
By quoting from or citing to a source, an editor represents that the material referenced to that source fairly and accurately reflects the intent of the original source. Failure to accurately reflect sources, whether by accident or design, is a serious matter as it undermines the integrity of the encyclopedia. An editor who repeatedly or intentionally fails to cite sources, cites unencyclopedic sources, misrepresents reliable sources, or manufactures original research may be sanctioned. Merely because disruption involves sources does not make said disruption a "content issue" outside of administrative reach. -2023-05
Sourcing
The verifiability policy is at the heart of one of the five pillars of Wikipedia and must be adhered to, through the use of reliable sources. Different types of sources (e.g. academic sources and news sources), as well as individual sources, need to be evaluated on their own merits. Differentiation between sources that meet the standard (e.g. different academic viewpoints, all of which are peer reviewed) is a matter for consensus among editors. When there is disagreement or uncertainty about the reliability of particular sources, editors are encouraged to use the reliable sources noticeboard to broaden the discussion. -2010-10
The verifiability policy is at the heart of one of the five pillars of Wikipedia and must be adhered to, through the use of reliable sources. Different types of sources (e.g. academic sources and news sources), as well as individual sources, need to be evaluated on their own merits. Differentiation between sources that meet the standard (e.g. different academic viewpoints, all of which are peer reviewed) is a matter for consensus among editors. When there is disagreement or uncertainty about the reliability of particular sources, editors are encouraged to seek broader input, for example by turning to the reliable sources noticeboard. -2013-06
Sourcing of articles
Wikipedia articles rely mainly on reliable mainstream secondary sources as these provide the requisite analysis, interpretation and context. Academic and peer-reviewed publications are the most highly valued sources and are usually the most reliable. Self-published works, whether by an individual or an organisation, may only be used in limited circumstances and with extreme care. Primary sources may be used to support specific statements of fact limited to descriptive aspects of these primary sources. In the event of sourcing disputes, talk page discussion should be used to discuss the dispute and seek a resolution. If discussion there does not resolve the dispute, the Reliable sources or Content Noticeboard should be used. -2009-10
Wikipedia articles rely mainly on reliable mainstream secondary sources as these provide the requisite analysis, interpretation and context. Academic and peer-reviewed publications are the most highly valued sources and are usually the most reliable. Self-published works, whether by an individual or an organisation, may only be used in limited circumstances and with extreme care. Primary sources may be used to support specific statements of fact limited to descriptive aspects of these primary sources. In the event of sourcing disputes, talk page discussion should be used to discuss the dispute and seek a resolution. If discussion there does not resolve the dispute, the reliable sources or dispute resolution noticeboards should be used. -2021-02
Standards for BLP articles
Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (the "BLP policy") is a fundamental policy requiring, among other things, that all biographical articles must be kept free of unsourced negative or controversial content, unsupported rumors and gossip, defamatory material, undue weight given to minor incidents or to matters irrelevant to the subject's notability, and unwarranted violations of personal privacy. -2014-04, 2022-03
Standards for biographical articles
Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (the "BLP policy") is a fundamental policy requiring, among other things, that all biographical articles must be kept free of unsourced negative or controversial content, unsupported rumors and gossip, defamatory material, undue weight given to minor incidents or to matters irrelevant to the subject's notability, and unwarranted violations of personal privacy. -2011-09
Standards of conduct
Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users and to approach disputes in a constructive fashion, with the aim of reaching a good-faith solution. Personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, harassment, disruptive point-making, edit-warring and gaming the system, are prohibited, as is the use of the site to pursue feuds and quarrels. Editors should also avoid accusing others of misconduct when this is done repeatedly or without simultaneously providing evidence or for the purpose of gaining an advantage in a content dispute. Editors who repeatedly violate these standards of conduct may be sanctioned. Editors who have genuine grievances against others are expected to avail themselves of the dispute resolution mechanism rather than engage in unbridled criticism across multiple forums. -2015-03
Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users and to approach disputes in a constructive fashion, with the aim of reaching a good-faith solution. Personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, harassment, disruptive point-making, edit-warring and gaming the system, are prohibited, as is the use of the site to pursue feuds and quarrels. Editors should also avoid accusing others of misconduct when this is done repeatedly or without simultaneously providing evidence or for the purpose of gaining an advantage in a content dispute. Editors who repeatedly violate these standards of conduct may be sanctioned. -2015-05
Editors will sometimes make mistakes, suffer occasional lapses of judgement, and ignore all rules from time to time in well-meaning furtherance of the project's goals. However, strong or even exceptional contributions to the encyclopedia do not excuse repeated violations of basic policy. Editors who have already been sanctioned for disruptive behavior may be sanctioned more harshly for repeated instances of similar behaviors. -2015-05
Editors will sometimes make mistakes, suffer occasional lapses of judgment, and ignore all rules from time to time in well-meaning furtherance of the project's goals. However, positive contributions to the encyclopedia do not excuse repeated violations of basic policy. Editors who have already been sanctioned for disruptive behavior may be sanctioned more harshly for repeated instances of similar behaviors. -2015-12
Standards of conduct for administrators
Wikipedia:Administrators is the policy enumerating the rules that administrators ought to follow when using their tools. Among these are the following:
- Accountability, under which administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct and administrator actions and to justify them when needed.
- Wheel war, under which administrators are expected not to repeat a reversed administrative action when they know that another administrator opposes it, unless a clear community consensus decision has subsequently overruled the other administrator's opposition.
- Involved administrators, under which editors should not act as administrators in cases in which they have been involved. -2013-10
Standards of editor behavior
Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users. Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, harassment, disruptive point-making, and gaming the system, is prohibited. Additionally, editors should presume that other editors, including those who disagree with them, are acting in good faith toward the betterment of the project, at least until strong evidence emerges to the contrary. Even when an editor becomes convinced that another editor is not acting in good faith, and has a reasonable basis for that belief, the editor should attempt to remedy the problem without resorting to inappropriate conduct of his or her own. -2014-04, 2015-12, 2018-03 (as "Standards of editor behaviour"), 2020-04, 2023-03
Tag-team editing
Tag teams work in unison to push a particular point of view. Tag-team editing – to thwart core policies (neutral point of view, verifiability, and no original research); or to evade procedural restrictions such as the three revert rule or to violate behavioural norms by edit warring; or to attempt to exert ownership over articles; or otherwise to prevent consensus prevailing – is prohibited. -2010-08
Talk pages
The purpose of a Wikipedia talk page is to provide space for editors to discuss changes to its associated article or project page. Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views or soapboxing. -2009-09
The purpose of a Wikipedia talk page is to provide space for editors to discuss changes to its associated article or project page. Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views on a subject, nor for proposing unpublished solutions, forwarding original ideas, redefining terms, and so forth (see Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought). Although more general discussion may be permissible in some circumstances, it will not be tolerated when it becomes tendentious, overwhelms the page, impedes productive work, or is otherwise disruptive. -2011-11
The purpose of a talk page is to provide a location for editors to discuss changes to the associated article or project page. Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views on a subject. Editors should aim to use talk pages effectively and must not misuse them through practices such as excessive repetition, monopolization, irrelevancy, advocacy, misrepresentation of others' comments, or personal attacks. -2013-06
Tendentious editing
Users who disrupt the editing of articles by engaging in sustained point-of-view editing may be banned from the affected articles, or in extreme cases from the site. -2013-06
Users who disrupt the editing of articles by engaging in sustained attacks on other editors or inflammatory comments may be banned from the affected articles. In extreme cases they may be banned from the site. -2011-03
Users who disrupt the editing of articles by engaging in sustained aggressive point-of-view editing and edit-warring may be banned from the affected articles, or in extreme cases from the site, either by community consensus or by the Arbitration Committee. -2015-11, 2019-12
Users who disrupt the editing of articles by engaging in sustained aggressive editing that frustrates proper editorial processes or discussions may be banned from the affected articles. In extreme cases, they may be banned from the site. -2020-06
Users who disrupt the editing of articles by engaging in sustained aggressive point-of-view editing may be banned from editing these articles. In extreme cases, they may be banned from the site. -2021-02, 2023-03, 2023-12
Terminating discussions
Administrators are accountable for their actions involving administrative tools. Discussion and criticism of the merits of administrative actions are acceptable within the bounds of avoiding personal attacks and civility. Such discussions can be closed when consensus has been reached, and/or when "the discussion is stable" or "further contributions are unlikely to be helpful", but "not too soon" or "not too late". -2019-02
The Arbitration Committee is not an editorial board
The Committee rules on conduct, not content. It does not dictate the content of any article. -2025-01
The BLP policy and article titles
The biographies of living persons policy applies to all references to living persons throughout Wikipedia, including the titles of articles and pages and all other portions of any page. -2013-10
The Manual of Style
Style guides are used as a means of creating a consistent end result. They do not affect content, but rather how that content is presented. The English Wikipedia's Manual of Style (MoS) is a guideline, or a set of "best practices" supported by consensus. The MoS is not a collection of hard rules. -2012-03
The editorial process
Wikipedia works by building consensus through the use of polite discussion—involving the wider community, if necessary—and dispute resolution. Sustained editorial conflict or edit-warring is not an appropriate method of resolving disputes. -2013-12
Topic area burnout
Repeatedly encountering bludgeoning, battleground tactics, and a lack of support from dispute resolution processes can lead to editors leaving the topic area or ceasing to productively engage in the consensus-building process, such as by adopting battleground tactics themselves or ceasing to file misconduct reports. -2023-05
Topics covering multiple perspectives
While many articles deal solely with scientific content or with philosophical/religious content, many public policy topics, including abortion, involve both descriptions of scientifically observable facts and religious or philosophical reactions to those observable findings. In order for a topic to be covered in an encyclopedic fashion, each sort of source must be used appropriately in such an article. Care must be taken with weighting and appropriate use of sources, such as avoiding undue prominence in the lead section or elsewhere. -2011-11
Training
Off-wiki training can help new editors by providing support and guidance to complement what's available onwiki. However, when training is incorrect or insufficient, it can bring those trained into conflict with the community by fostering false confidence, misplaced expectations, and misunderstandings of how Wikipedia works. -2022-03
Treatment of new editors
Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers, an important guideline, reminds us that "Wikipedia articles are improved through the hard work of both regular editors and newcomers. Remember: all of us were new editors at Wikipedia once.... New members are prospective contributors and are therefore Wikipedia's most valuable resource. We must treat newcomers with kindness and patience—nothing scares potentially valuable contributors away faster than hostility. It is very unlikely for a newcomer to be completely familiar with Wikipedia's markup language and its myriad of policies, guidelines, and community standards when they start editing...." -2019-02
Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers, an important guideline, reminds us that "Wikipedia articles are improved through the hard work of both regular editors and newcomers. Remember: all of us were new editors at Wikipedia once.... New members are prospective contributors and are therefore Wikipedia's most valuable resource. We must treat newcomers with kindness and patience—nothing scares potentially valuable contributors away faster than hostility. It is very unlikely for a newcomer to be completely familiar with Wikipedia's markup language and its myriad of policies, guidelines, and community standards when they start editing...". -2020-02
Wikipedia articles are improved through the hard work of both regular editors and newcomers; every new editor is a potential long-term contributor. All editors should therefore assume good faith when dealing with new editors and, if it is necessary to comment on problematic actions, do so in a clear and polite manner. Treating newcomers with hostility can alienate a potential contributor and is therefore detrimental to the project as a whole. -2020-02
Treatment of scientific topics
Encyclopedias are generally expected to provide overviews of scientific topics that are in line with current mainstream scientific thought, while also recognizing significant alternate viewpoints. Significant alternatives, in this case, refers to legitimate scientific disagreement, as opposed to pseudo-scientific or non-scientific viewpoints. -2011-02
Types of conflict of interest or bias
Conflicts or outside interests that may affect an editor's neutrality may be either positive or negative toward the subject of an article. Historically, Wikipedia's conflict-of-interest guideline has been invoked (and in some instances, has been overzealously or counterproductively invoked) most often against positive conflicts of interest, such as where an article is edited by its subject or someone closely associated with the subject. However, it can be at least as damaging where an article is edited primarily by persons who are avowed rivals or enemies of the subject, or who are involved in disputes with the subject originating outside Wikipedia. Thus, editors who have a strongly negative view regarding the subject of an article, just like editors with a strongly positive view of the subject, should be especially careful to edit that article neutrally if they choose to edit it at all. -2011-09
Undue weight
In describing points of view on a subject, articles should fairly represent the weight of authority for each such view, and should not accord them undue weight. Thus, views held by a relatively small proportion of commentators or scholars should not be overstated, but similarly, views held by a relatively large proportion thereof should not be understated. -2010-10
Unblocking users
Except in cases of unambiguous error or significant change in circumstances dealing with the reason for blocking, administrators should avoid unblocking users without first attempting to contact the blocking administrator to discuss the matter. If the blocking administrator is not available, or if the administrators cannot come to an agreement, then a discussion at the administrators' noticeboard is recommended. See Wikipedia:Blocking policy. –2022-11
Universal Code of Conduct
The Universal Code of Conduct (UCoC) defines a minimum set of guidelines of expected and unacceptable behaviour. The English Wikipedia has developed policies and guidelines (PAG) that add to this minimum that take account of local and cultural context, maintaining the UCoC criteria as a minimum standard and, in many PAGs, going beyond those minimums. Therefore, the Arbitration Committee, as an identified high-level decision making body under the UCoC enforcement guidelines, may choose to evaluate compliance with English Wikipedia PAG, while still respecting the UCoC. -2023-05
Use of administrative tools in a dispute
Administrative tools must not be used to further an administrator's own position in a content or interpersonal dispute. -2012-02
Use of administrator tools for paid editing
At the time of the events underlying this case, English Wikipedia policies governing administrators did not expressly discuss whether administrators may utilize their administrator tools as part of a fully disclosed paid editing assignment. A request for comment is currently underway in which the community is discussing this issue. -2018-01
Use of administrator tools in a dispute
An administrator must not use his or her administrator tools to further the administrator’s position in a dispute. -2009-09
Use of article talk pages
The purpose of a Wikipedia talk page is to provide space for editors to discuss changes to its associated article or project page. Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views on a subject, nor for proposing unpublished solutions, forwarding original ideas, redefining terms, or so forth (see Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought). Although more general discussion may be permissible in some circumstances, it will not be tolerated when it becomes tendentious, overwhelms the page, impedes productive work, or is otherwise disruptive. -2011-03
Use of CheckUser
The CheckUser tool must be used in ways which are, and appear to be, neutral and responsible. Use of the CheckUser tool in situations where there is an apparent conflict of interest or where the CheckUser is unable to provide adequate justification for checks they have carried out, do not meet these requirements. –2022-11
User Conduct
Wikipedia's code of conduct, which outlines some of Wikipedia's expected standards of behavior and decorum, is one of the five pillars of Wikipedia that all editors are expected to follow. Even in difficult situations, Wikipedia editors are expected to adopt a constructive and collaborative outlook, behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other editors, and avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. Administrators are expected to adhere to this at a higher standard. Uncivil, unseemly, or disruptive conduct, including but not limited to lack of respect for other editors, failure to work towards consensus, offensive commentary (including rude, offensive, derogatory, and insulting terms in any language), personal attacks, unjustified failure to assume good faith, harassment, edit-warring, disruptive point-making, and gaming the system, are all unacceptable as they are inconsistent with Wikipedia's expected standards of behavior and decorum. Users should not respond to such misconduct in kind; concerns regarding the actions of other users should be brought up in the appropriate forums. -2010-10
User conduct
Wikipedia's code of conduct, which outlines some of Wikipedia's expected standards of behavior and decorum, is one of the five pillars of Wikipedia that all editors should adhere to. Even in difficult situations, Wikipedia editors are expected to project a constructive and collaborative outlook, behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other editors, and avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. Administrators are expected to adhere to this at a higher standard. Uncivil, unseemly or disruptive conduct, including, but not limited to, lack of respect for other editors, failure to work towards consensus, offensive commentary (including rude, offensive, derogatory, and insulting terms in any language), personal attacks, failure to assume good faith, harassment, edit-warring, disruptive point-making and gaming the system, are all prohibited as they are inconsistent with Wikipedia's expected standards of behavior and decorum. Users should not respond to such misconduct in kind; concerns regarding the actions of other users should be brought up in the appropriate forums. -2010-03
Editors on the English Wikipedia are expected to abide by the site's policies and guidelines. When an editor seriously or repeatedly violates these expectations, sanctions may be imposed, in accordance with policy, by an uninvolved administrator, by community consensus after discussion on a noticeboard, or by the Arbitration Committee. Administrators are also expected to abide by the applicable policies and guidelines and to exercise good judgement, especially in connection with major administrator actions such as blocking a good-faith editor, and for failure to do so may be subject to sanctions including desysopping by the Committee. -2019-09
Wikipedia's code of conduct, which outlines some of Wikipedia's expected standards of behavior and decorum, is one of the five pillars of Wikipedia that all editors should adhere to. Even in difficult situations, Wikipedia editors are expected to: project a constructive and collaborative outlook, behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other editors, and avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. Administrators are expected to adhere to this at a higher standard. Uncivil, unseemly or disruptive conduct, including, but not limited to, lack of respect for other editors, failure to work towards consensus, offensive commentary (including rude, offensive, derogatory, and insulting terms in any language), personal attacks, failure to assume good faith, harassment, edit-warring, disruptive point-making and gaming the system, are all prohibited as they are inconsistent with Wikipedia's expected standards of behavior and decorum. Users should not respond to such misconduct in kind; concerns regarding the actions of other users should be brought up in the appropriate forums. -2009-12
User contributions and harassment
While it is acceptable and sometimes necessary for an editor to review, comment and correct appropriately on the contributions of another editor that are problematic, the practice known as "wikihounding" or "wikistalking" is considered as a form of harassment and is prohibited by policy. The line between legitimate and improper behavior in this area is not always clearly defined. Relevant factors include whether or not there was consensus from multiple editors on the concerns raised, and whether or not the editor have raised these concerns on talk pages, noticeboards or other appropriate venues. Most importantly, whether or not the editor was motivated by good faith concerns about the quality of the topic area, instead of being motivated by personal hostility toward one editor. -2018-08
User scripts
Users are responsible and accountable for all their edits or actions, whether they are assisted by user scripts or not. Users are expected to take appropriate additional care when contributing with the assistance of a user script. -2019-02
User talk pages
Considerable leeway is given to users on what they allow in their own user space, including their personal talk page. -2014-10
Vandalism
Policy defines Vandalism as … " any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia". It further states: "Vandalism cannot and will not be tolerated". Editors who facilitate vandalism may be sanctioned even if they do not directly engage in acts of vandalism. -2010-02
On Wikipedia, vandalism has a very specific meaning: editing (or other behavior) deliberately intended to obstruct or defeat the project's purpose. Even if misguided, willfully against consensus, or disruptive, any good faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism. Even factually correct material may not belong on Wikipedia, and removing such content when it is inconsistent with Wikipedia's content policies is not vandalism. –2023-07
Verifiability
All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists and captions, must be verifiable. All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material. A source "directly supports" a given piece of material if that information is directly present in the source, so that using this source to support this material is not a violation of Wikipedia:No original research. -2019-07
Verifiability and citing sources
All material added to Wikipedia articles must be verifiable, that is, it must be capable of being verified by reference to a reliable source. Editors adding material are not generally required to cite sources, however they should do so when the material is controversial or likely to be challenged, and must do so when the material has actually been challenged or when the material incorporates a direct quotation. Material that is not cited to a reliable source is liable to be challenged and ultimately removed by other editors, if they are unable to verify it.
The citing sources guideline outlines Wikipedia best practice on citing sources. -2009-07
Verifiability of foreign language texts
Claims on the English Wikipedia must verifiably come from a reliable source, and the ability for editors to verify claims is important for resolving factual disputes. Citations to non-English reliable sources are allowed on the English Wikipedia. However, because this project is in English, English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones when they are available and of equal quality and relevance. The use of foreign language sources should be done with care, especially in contentious topics, because it can significantly reduce the number of editors able to verify or help resolve disputes. -2023-05
Vested contributors
Editors will sometimes make mistakes, suffer occasional lapses of judgment, and ignore all rules from time to time in well-meaning furtherance of the project's goals. However, strong or even exceptional contributions to the encyclopedia do not excuse repeated violations of basic policy, not even from highly experienced, knowledgeable editors who produce quality content. All editors should work within Wikipedia's collaborative consensus environment and if a dispute arises, avoid personal attacks and assumptions of bad faith and recognize that Wikipedia is a communal endeavor, with communal routes to dispute resolution. -2009-12, 2010-03
Editors will sometimes make mistakes, suffer occasional lapses of judgement, and ignore all rules from time to time in well-meaning furtherance of the project's goals. However, strong or even exceptional contributions to the encyclopedia do not excuse repeated violations of basic policy. -2015-11
Wheel-warring
In a non-emergency situation, administrators are expected to refrain from undoing each others' administrative actions without first attempting to resolve the dispute by means of discussion with the initiating administrator, even in the face of an ongoing community discussion. In a situation where there is an ongoing community discussion, administrators should refrain from undoing another administrator's actions until consensus has become clear. -2012-02
Wikilawyering and stonewalling
Excessive formalistic and legalistic argument over policies and stonewalling, which ignores the spirit of those policies and serves to obstruct consensus-building processes or cover up an agenda of POV-pushing, is harmful to the project and may be met with sanctions. -2020-01
Wikimedia Commons and English Language Wikipedia
Files hosted on Wikipedia's sister-site, Wikimedia Commons and used on the English Language Wikipedia must still comply with all relevant policies, including that of copyright. Users must take care to properly license such files on Commons before adding them to the English language Wikipedia. Failure to do so can lead to community or Arbitration Committee sanctions. -2012-07
Wikimedia Foundation role
The Wikimedia Foundation (WMF), sometimes referred to as the "Office," is the legal owner of the English Wikipedia website and infrastructure. Working through professional staff, many of whom also have experience as volunteer editors and community members, the Office plays an important and necessary role in administering the site. Historically, however, the Office has not intervened directly in day-to-day English Wikipedia project governance, and in particular has not handled user-conduct complaints involving on-wiki conduct, except in narrow circumstances that are unsuited for resolution by community volunteers. In the past, the Arbitration Committee has expressly asked that the Office handle certain narrow categories of misconduct complaints, but not that it take on a broader supervisory role regarding on-wiki day-to-day user or administrator conduct. -2019-09
Wikipedia is not a battleground
Wikipedia is not a battleground. Consequently, it is a not a venue for the furtherance of grudges and personal disputes. -2009-12, 2010-03, 2013-08
Wikipedia is not a battleground. It is not acceptable to further off-wiki disputes on this project. -2010-10
Wikipedia is not a place to hold grudges or insult, harass, or intimidate those with whom you have a disagreement. Editors should approach issues intelligently and engage in polite discussion. Editors who consistently find themselves in disputes with each other when they interact on Wikipedia, and who are unable to resolve their differences, should seek to minimise the extent of any unnecessary interactions between them. Interaction bans may used to force editors to do so. -2016-06
Wikipedia is not a place to hold grudges or insult, harass, or intimidate those with whom you have a disagreement. Editors should approach issues intelligently and engage in polite discussion. Editors who consistently find themselves in disputes with each other when they interact on Wikipedia, and who are unable to resolve their differences, should seek to minimise the extent of any unnecessary interactions between them. Interaction bans may be used to force editors to do so. -2020-01, 2020-06
Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy
Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, and its internal administrative and dispute-resolution processes are not a legal system. Although in most cases disruptive conduct will be in violation of one or more policies, it is not necessary for a specific policy to be violated in order for an editor's conduct to be disruptive or unconducive to the encyclopaedia. Policy is intended to be a description of practice rather than an exhaustive list of rules and as such there cannot (and in some cases should not) be a policy against every form of disruptive editing. Administrators must use a combination of policy and common sense in order to effectively discharge their duties. -2015-06
Wikipedia is not a forum
Wikipedia is not a general discussion forum or a debate club. -2025-01
Wikipedia is not a soapbox
Wikipedia is not a soapbox for propaganda or activist editing, including, but not limited to, creating articles to promote a particular point of view on a certain topic. -2009-10
Wikipedia page or topic bans
A Wikipedia ban is a formal revocation of editing privileges on all or part of Wikipedia. A ban may be temporary and of fixed duration, or indefinite and potentially permanent. When enacting an editing restriction that includes a ban on an editor, administrators should take reasonable steps to ensure that the editor is notified of the particulars of the ban and its duration. Editors that are ‘‘page or’’ topic banned from a section of Wikipedia are expected to cease contributing to that area. User account blocks may be used to enforce violation of ‘‘page or’’ topic bans. Any user can bring an administrator action up for review in the relevant noticeboard. The community can, among other things, lift the block/ban, endorse it or extend it in time and/or scope. -2009-09
See also
- Wikipedia:Casting aspersions – findings of the Arbitration Committee as they relate to a particular sort of civility problem
- Wikipedia:Fait accompli – Arbitration Committee ruling against abusing a large number of edits to exhaust the ability of other editors to object to changes
| Wikipedia Arbitration |
|---|
|
|
|
| Track related changes |
This is an archive of the results of all closed motions, amendments and clarifications completed by the Arbitration Committee. For a index of clarification and amendment requests see this index. Motions and clarifications associated with arbitration cases are archived to the talk page of the associated case page as well as being recorded here, such as Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Mantanmoreland#Request for clarification: Mantanmoreland. Prior to July 18, 2008, motions and clarifications without associated arbitration cases were archived in various places.
- More recently closed motions on top
2025
| Topic | Opened | Closed | Outcome | Relevant links |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures § Format of requests for amendment | 4 May 2025 | 5 May 2025 | In line with updates to procedural documentation made in November 2024, Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures#Format of requests for amendment is amended by motion with the following change:
|
Motion |
| Noleander | 18 April 2025 | 3 May 2025 | Remedy 1.1 (Noleander topic-banned) of Noleander is rescinded. | Motion |
| Tinucherian (talk · contribs) | 16 April 2025 | 18 April 2025 | Two motions were enacted
|
Motions |
| Arbitration Committee procedures § Coordinating arbitrators | 1 December 2024 | 10 January 2025 | The Arbitration Committee's procedures are amended by adding the following section:
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 existing arbitration clerks assist in the administration of the Committee's on-wiki work. The specific responsibilities of coordinating arbitrators shall include:
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. |
Motion |
2024
| Topic | Opened | Closed | Outcome | Relevant links |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Amendment request: Palestine-Israel articles (AE referral) and Palestine-Israel articles 5 | 17 August 2024 | 15 November 2024 |
|
Four motions enacted: motion 1, motion 2b, motion 2c, and motion 5 |
| Marine 69-71 | 26 October 2024 | 7 November 2024 | Marine 69-71 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)'s administrative privileges are revoked. He may apply to have them reinstated at any time via a new request for adminship. | Motion |
| German war effort | 13 August 2024 | 30 August 2024 | Remedy 3C of the German war effort case ("Cinderella157 German history topic ban") is suspended for a period of six months. During the period of suspension, this topic ban may be reinstated by any uninvolved administrator, as an arbitration enforcement action, should Cinderella157 (talk · contribs) fail to adhere to any normal editorial process or expectations in the topic area. Appeal of such a reinstatement would follow the normal arbitration enforcement appeals process. After six months from the date this motion is enacted, if the topic ban has not been reinstated or any reinstatements have been successfully appealed, the topic ban will automatically lapse. | Motion |
| World War II and the history of Jews in Poland | 21 June 2024 | 8 August 2024 | Two motions were enacted:
|
Enacted motion 2 and motion 3 |
| Historical elections | 19 July 2024 | 7 August 2024 | Following a request for action based on evidence of alleged harassment and canvassing, the Arbitration Committee directs its clerks to open a case to examine the topic area of historical elections. Subject to amendment by the drafting arbitrators, the following rules will govern the case:
|
Motion |
| Suspension of Beeblebrox | 10 July 2024 | 17 July 2024 | The November announcement of the suspension of Beeblebrox is amended to remove the sentence These failures followed a previous formal warning issued to Beeblebrox in September 2021 by the Arbitration Committee concerning his conduct in off-wiki forums.and insert in its place the sentence In September 2021, within the scope of internal Committee discussions, Beeblebrox was advised that his off-wiki conduct was suboptimal. |
Motion |
| Durova | 4 July 2024 | 12 July 2024 | Principle 2 of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Durova, Private correspondence, is changed from2) In the absence of permission from the author (including of any included prior correspondence) to 2) In the absence of permission from the author (including of any included prior correspondence), the contents of private correspondence, including e-mails, should not be posted on-wiki. |
Motion |
| Skepticism and coordinated editing | 18 June 2024 | 21 June 2024 | The Arbitration Committee assumes the block of Rp2006 (talk · contribs). | Motion |
| Conduct in deletion-related editing | 30 April 2024 | 3 June 2024 | TenPoundHammer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is indefinitely topic banned from removing all content in an article and replacing it with a redirect (commonly known as a blank-and-redirect, or BLAR). This topic ban will be suspended for a period of 12 months. This topic ban may be unsuspended and imposed onto TenPoundHammer if disruption by BLARing restarts, as determined by any of: (1) a consensus of administrators on WP:AE, (2) at least two arbitrators indicating "support" to unsuspend at WP:ARCA, with no opposition from other arbitrators indicated up to 48 hours after the second support, or (3) a majority of active arbitrators at WP:ARCA if there is opposition as indicated in condition 2. After 12 months, if it has not been imposed, the topic ban will be automatically lifted. | motion |
| Sri Lanka contentious topic designation | 11 April 2024 | 20 April 2024 | Sri Lanka, broadly construed, is designated as a contentious topic. | motion |
| Skepticism and coordinated editing | 16 April 2024 | 20 April 2024 | For violations of their topic ban and for continued editing which violate the conflict of interest guidelines, Rp2006 is blocked for 1 month. This block may be appealed only to the Arbitration Committee. | motion |
| Armenia-Azerbaijan 3 | 11 April 2024 | 18 April 2024 | Remedy 3.1 of the case Armenia-Azerbaijan 3 ("Topic ban (Olympian)") is lifted subject to a probationary period lasting eighteen months from the date this motion is enacted. During this period, any uninvolved administrator may re-impose the topic ban as an arbitration enforcement action, subject to appeal only to the Arbitration Committee. If the probationary period elapses without incident, the topic ban is to be considered permanently lifted. | motion |
| Amending the scope of appeals considered by the Arbitration Committee | 5 February 2024 | 14 February 2024 | The Arbitration Committee resolves to amend the scope of block appeals it handles, thus updating the guidance from previous motion in 2015, as follows:
The Arbitration Committee hears appeals from editors who are (a) blocked for reasons that are unsuitable for public discussion, or (b) blocked or banned by Arbitration and Arbitration Enforcement decisions. Examples of reasons that are unsuitable for public discussion include blocks (i) marked as an Oversight block, or (ii) based on CheckUser evidence, and where there exists disagreement between checkusers as to the interpretation of the technical evidence. It is expected that blocks marked as a CheckUser block are by default appealed on-wiki; however, the Arbitration Committee may hear appeals of such blocks if there are compelling reasons to hear an appeal in private. |
motion |
| Mzajac | 2 February 2024 | 6 February 2024 | Given Mzajac (talk · contribs)'s absence from editing, the Mzajac case will be suspended for a period of three months and Mzajac will be temporarily desysopped.
Should Mzajac return to active editing on the English Wikipedia during this time and request that this case be resumed, the Arbitration Committee shall unsuspend the case by motion and it will proceed through the normal arbitration process. Such a request may be made by email to arbcom-en If such a request is not made within three months of this motion or if Mzajac resigns his administrative tools, this case shall be automatically closed, and Mzajac shall remain desysopped. If tools are resigned or removed, in the circumstances described above, Mzajac may regain the administrative tools at any time only via a successful request for adminship. |
motion |
| Severity of arbitration remedies | 25 January 2024 | 30 January 2024 | Add the following to the Arbitration Procedures as a subsection of "Arbitration Proceedings"
|
motion |
| PIA Canvassing | 4 January 2024 | 20 January 2024 | 6 Motions were passed as follows:
|
Enacted motions, ACN Announcement |
| GiantSnowman | 2 January 2024 | 7 January 2024 | Remedy 1.2 of the GiantSnowman case ("GiantSnowman admonished and placed under review") is amended to read as follows:
|
Enacted motion |
| Antisemitism in Poland Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures § Reliable source consensus-required restriction |
31 December 2023 | 4 January 2024 | Clerks are instructed to add a new section, entitled "Reliable source consensus-required restriction" to the Enforcement section of the Arbitration Procedures with the following text:
Remedy 5 of Antisemitism in Poland is superseded by the following restriction:
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eastern Europe is amended to include the following restriction:
Clerks are instructed to link to the Arbitration Procedures in the two restrictions above and are empowered to make other changes necessary to implement this new enforcement procedure. |
Enacted motion |
2023
| Topic | Opened | Closed | Outcome | Relevant links |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Editor conduct in e-cigs articles | 2 November 2023 | 11 November 2023 | The Extended Confirmed Restriction is amended as follows:
|
Enacted motion |
| Editor conduct in e-cigs articles | 13 October 2023 | 19 October 2023 | Remedy 1 of Editor conduct in e-cigs articles ("Contentious topic designation") is rescinded. Any actions previously taken in accordance with the contentious topic authorization remain in force and are governed by the procedures. | Enacted motion |
| Liancourt Rocks | 13 October 2023 | 19 October 2023 | The final remedy of Liancourt Rocks ("Contentious topic designation") is rescinded. Any actions previously taken in accordance with the contentious topic authorization remain in force and are governed by the procedures. | Enacted motion |
| Longevity | 13 October 2023 | 19 October 2023 | Remedy 1 of Longevity ("Contentious topic designation") is rescinded. Any actions previously taken in accordance with the contentious topic authorization remain in force and are governed by the procedures. | Enacted motion |
| Medicine | 13 October 2023 | 19 October 2023 | Remedy 2 of Medicine ("Contentious topic designation") is rescinded. Any actions previously taken in accordance with the contentious topic authorization remain in force and are governed by the procedures. | Enacted motion |
| September 11 conspiracy theories | 13 October 2023 | 19 October 2023 | Remedy 2 of September 11 conspiracy theories ("Contentious topic designation") is rescinded due to the topic area being covered by the post-1992 American Politics contentious topic. All actions taken under the rescinded authorization remain in force and are governed by the procedures. | Enacted motion |
| Shakespeare authorship question | 13 October 2023 | 19 October 2023 | Remedy 1 of Shakespeare authorship question ("Contentious topic designation") is rescinded. Any actions previously taken in accordance with the contentious topic authorization remain in force and are governed by the procedures. | Enacted motion |
| Macedonia 2 | 13 October 2023 | 19 October 2023 | The following remedies from Macedonia 2 are rescinded:
Editors are reminded that Eastern Europe and the Balkans, broadly construed, continues to be a contentious topic. |
Enacted motion |
| The Troubles | 13 October 2023 | 19 October 2023 | Remedy 6 of the The Troubles case ("One-revert rule") is amended to read as follows:
|
Enacted motion |
| Prem Rawat | 8 October 2023 | 10 October 2023 | The Prem Rawat case is amended by striking the remedy designating Prem Rawat as a contentious topic (Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Prem Rawat § Contentious topic designation). Any actions previously taken in accordance with the contentious topic designation remain in force and are governed by the contentious topics procedure. | Enacted motion |
| Mark Ironie and CorbieVreccan (from case request entitled CorbieVreccan, Mark Ironie, and Tamzin) |
12 September 2023 | 17 September 2023 | Mark Ironie (talk · contribs) and CorbieVreccan (talk · contribs) will be considered a single user for Wikipedia's purposes. When editing the same articles, participating in the same community discussion, or supporting each other in any sort of dispute, these editors must disclose their connection and observe relevant policies such as edit warring as if they were a single account. | Enacted motion |
| WikiProject Tropical Cyclones | 28 August 2023 | 8 September 2023 | Remedy 9 of the WikiProject Tropical Cyclones case ("MarioProtIV topic ban") is rescinded. | Enacted motion |
| Paradise Chronicle | 28 July 2023 | 1 August 2023 | Paradise Chronicle (talk · contribs) is indefinitely site-banned. | Enacted motion |
| Manning naming dispute | 11 June 2023 | 17 June 2023 | The direct quotes linked in Findings of Fact 15, 16, and 18.1 of the Manning naming dispute are replaced by their respective Special:Diff link. | Enacted motion |
| Conduct in deletion-related editing | 23 February 2023 | 26 February 2023 | Remedy 11 ("Request for Comment") of the Conduct in deletion-related editing case is rescinded. There are no actions remaining in force from this remedy, so the community are free to conduct and close these and related discussions moving forward. The Committee thanks Xeno and Valereee for their work as moderators; KrakatoaKatie, RoySmith, and TheSandDoctor for their work as closers; and all the editors who participated in these discussions to date. | Enacted motion |
| Armenia-Azerbaijan 3 | 9 January 2023 | 27 January 2023 | The Arbitration Committee agrees to open a case with the name Armenia-Azerbaijan 3. The parties, drafting arb(s), timetable, and structure will be communicated to the clerks following this motion passing (see ArbCom procedures). | Enacted motion |
| Closing Clarification and Amendment Requests | 3 January 2023 | 8 January 2023 | A section titled "Closing" will be added to Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures under "Requests for amendment" with the following text:
|
Enacted motion |
2022
| Topic | Opened | Closed | Outcome | Relevant links |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2021-22 contentious topics (discretionary sanctions) review | 13 November 2022 | 14 December 2022 | See final decision
The above proposals that are supported by an absolute majority of unrecused active arbitrators are hereby enacted. The drafting arbitrators (CaptainEek, L235, and Wugapodes) are directed to take the actions necessary to bring the proposals enacted by this motion into effect, including by amending the procedures at WP:AC/P and WP:AC/DS. The authority granted to the drafting arbitrators by this motion expires one month after enactment. The Arbitration Committee thanks all those who have participated in the 2021-22 discretionary sanctions review process and all who have helped bring it to a successful conclusion. This motion concludes the 2021-22 discretionary sanctions review process. |
Enacted motion to close; ACN announcement; implementation page |
| Level 2 contacting admins (November 2022) | 16 November 2022 | 19 November 2022 | The first step of the Level II procedures is amended to read:
1. The initiating arbitrator will contact the account via e-mail asking the account to contact arbcom-en and leave a message on the account's talk page alerting the account to the email. If email contact is not possible, the initiating arbitrator will leave a message on the account's talk page asking the account to contact arbcom-en. |
Enacted motion |
| Temporary checkuser privileges for scrutineers (November 2022) | 5 November 2022 | 6 November 2022 | On recommendation of the Electoral Commission, temporary English Wikipedia checkuser privileges are granted to stewards Sotiale, Martin Urbanec, and Hasley solely for the purpose of their acting as scrutineers in the 2022 Arbitration Committee election. | Enacted motion |
| Reversal and reinstatement of Athaenara’s block | 15 October 2022 | 16 October 2022 |
The Arbitration Committee directs its clerks to open a case to examine the reversal and reinstatement of Athaenara (talk · contribs)’s block, TheresNoTime (talk · contribs)'s use of the checkuser tool, and connected events. Subject to amendment by the drafting arbitrators, the following rules will govern the case:
|
Enacted motion |
| Level 2 desysop of Athaenara | 15 October 2022 | 16 October 2022 | This case request was brought to review the administrative status of Athaenara (talk · contribs), a then-administrator who was indefinitely blocked for personal attacks. Subsequently, the Arbitration Committee resolved to remove Athaenara’s administrative privileges through its Level II removal procedures. This case request is therefore resolved as follows: Athaenara may request that a case be opened and proceed through normal arbitration processes for further consideration of her administrative status by emailing the Arbitration Committee at arbcom-enwikimedia.org within three months of the enactment of this motion. The Committee will then decide whether to open a case or resolve the matter by motion. If Athaenara does not make such a request within the three-month period, she will remain desysopped and may regain the administrative tools only through a successful request for adminship.
|
Enacted motion |
| Lightbreather | 18 September 2022 | 21 September 2022 | Remedy 1 of the Lightbreather case is suspended for a probationary period lasting twelve months from the date this motion is enacted. During this period, any uninvolved administrator may block Lightbreather (talk · contribs) for any of the behaviors identified in the Findings of Fact or for failure to adhere to any normal editorial process or expectations as an Arbitration Enforcement action for up to 1 year. Any block 3 months or longer should be reported to the Arbitration Committee for automatic review. The committee will consider presented evidence and statements before deciding by motion what, if any, actions are necessary, up to and including reinstating a site ban. In the event that no administrator imposes such a block, the remedy will automatically lapse after twelve months. Restrictions detailed in remedies 2-6 remain in place until actively appealed. | Enacted motion |
| Conduct in deletion-related editing | 19 September 2022 | 21 September 2022 | Remedy 11 of the Conduct in deletion-related editing case ("Request for Comment") is amended to ratify the moderators' decision to hold two sequential RfCs and to make other changes. | Enacted motion |
| Muhammad images | 17 August 2022 | 31 August 2022 | Remedy 8.1 of the Muhammad images case ("Discretionary sanctions") is rescinded two months after this motion is enacted. | Enacted motion ACN announcement |
| Rachel Marsden | 8 May 2022 | 15 May 2022 | Remedy 2 of the Rachel Marsden case ("Articles which relate to Rachel Marsden") is rescinded. | Enacted motionACN announcement |
| St Christopher | 22 April 2022 | 26 April 2022 | Remedy 2 of the St Christopher case ("Single-purpose accounts restrained") is rescinded. Any actions previously taken in accordance with this remedy remain in force. | Enacted motion |
| Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures#Clerks | 16 April 2022 | 26 April 2022 | The Arbitration Committee procedures is amended to add a new section "Clerks" (level 2) and a subsection entitled "Terms" with the following text:
|
Enacted motion |
| Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures#Opening of proceedings | 21 March 2022 | 29 March 2022 | The Arbitration Committee procedure on "Opening of proceedings" (Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures § Opening of proceedings) is amended so the first line reads:
|
Enacted motion |
| Kurds and Kurdistan | 16 March 2022 | 20 March 2022 | Supreme Deliciousness' topic ban from Kurds and Kurdistan, broadly construed is lifted subject to a probationary period lasting twelve months from the date this motion is enacted. During this period, any uninvolved administrator may re-impose the topic ban as an arbitration enforcement action, subject to appeal only to the Arbitration Committee. If the probationary period elapses without incident, the topic ban is to be considered permanently lifted. | Enacted motion |
| Timwi | 1 February 2022 | 11 February 2022 | The Committee recognizes Timwi's long service, and encourages his continued editing. However, Timwi (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) is warned that the use of the administrator toolset must conform to the policies set by the community. He should especially take note of WP:ADMINACCT, and remember that the toolset is not to be used to further content or policy disputes. The Committee will consider any further misuse of the toolset within a two-year period to be immediate cause for opening de-sysop proceedings. | Enacted motion |
| Transcendental Meditation movement | 27 January 2022 | 5 February 2022 | Remedy 7 of the Transcendental Meditation movement case ("Standard discretionary sanctions") is rescinded. Any actions previously taken in accordance with the discretionary sanctions authorization remain in force and are governed by the discretionary sanctions procedure. | Enacted motion |
| Ancient Egyptian race controversy | 27 January 2022 | 5 February 2022 | The first sentence of the January 2014 motion in the Ancient Egyptian race controversy case (authorizing discretionary sanctions) is stricken. Any actions previously taken in accordance with the discretionary sanctions authorization remain in force and are governed by the discretionary sanctions procedure. | Enacted motion |
| Obsolete probation-like sanctions | 27 January 2022 | 4 February 2022 | Remedies 6, 7, and 8 of the Asmahan case (relating to article probation and discretionary sanctions) are rescinded.
Remedy 2 of the Waterboarding case ("General restriction") is rescinded. Where appropriate, the discretionary sanctions authorized in the American politics 2 case may continue to be used.
Any actions previously taken in accordance with the foregoing remedies remain in force, and appeals and modifications therefrom shall be governed by the standard procedure for arbitration enforcement appeals. |
Enacted motion |
| Article probation revocation | 27 January 2022 | 2 February 2022 |
Any actions previously taken in accordance with the foregoing remedies remain in force, and appeals and modifications therefrom shall be governed by the standard procedure for arbitration enforcement appeals. |
Enacted motion |
| Landmark Worldwide | 27 January 2022 | 2 February 2022 | The January 2015 motion in the Landmark Worldwide case (authorizing discretionary sanctions) is rescinded. Any actions previously taken in accordance with the discretionary sanctions authorization remain in force and are governed by the discretionary sanctions procedure. | Enacted motion |
| Scientology | 27 January 2022 | 1 February 2022 | Remedy 4.1 of the Scientology case ("Discretionary sanctions authorised") is rescinded. Any actions previously taken in accordance with the discretionary sanctions authorization remain in force and are governed by the discretionary sanctions procedure. | Enacted motion |
| Waldorf education | 27 January 2022 | 1 February 2022 | The first sentence of the January 2013 motion in the Waldorf education case (authorizing discretionary sanctions) is stricken. Any actions previously taken in accordance with the discretionary sanctions authorization remain in force and are governed by the discretionary sanctions procedure. | Enacted motion |
| Senkaku Islands | 27 January 2022 | 1 February 2022 | Remedy 7 of the Senkaku Islands case ("Discretionary sanctions") is rescinded. Any actions previously taken in accordance with the discretionary sanctions authorization remain in force and are governed by the discretionary sanctions procedure. | Enacted motion |
| Motion: Crouch, Swale | 7 January 2022 | 10 January 2022 | Crouch, Swale's editing restrictions, previously modified in 2019, are modified as follows: He may create at most one new mainspace article per month through any process. He is not required to use the Articles for Creation process, and is not permitted to use it to exceed this rate. This restriction includes the creation of new content at a title that is a redirect or disambiguation page. This supersedes the second bullet point of the 2019 motion. Additionally, he may move userspace or draftspace pages to mainspace for the purpose of creating his one article per month, as an exception to his page move restriction. His restriction on frequency of appeals remains in force. | Enacted motionACN announcement |
| Resolution by motion of the case request Warsaw concentration camp | 1 January 2022 | 10 January 2022 |
This request for arbitration is resolved as follows:
|
motionACN announcement |
| 2 January 2022 | Jehochman (talk · contribs) is admonished for behavior during this case request which fell short of the expectations for administrators and for the behavior of all editors participating in an Arbitration Committee proceeding. Specifically, Jehochman proxied for a globally banned harasser by posting on their behalf a denial of harassment and unsupported claims of collusion among editors in this topic area [2] and for casting aspersions at another editor for userboxes shown on their userpage [3]. The Arbitration Committee acknowledges that Jehochman has since apologized for these comments and has since been desysopped at his request. [4] | motionACN announcement | ||
| MyMoloboaccount (talk · contribs) is warned against casting aspersions towards other editors [5]. This warning should be considered as a sanction for the purposes of awareness in the topic areas of Eastern Europe and the Holocaust in Poland. | motionACN announcement | |||
| American politics 2 | 6 January 2022 | 9 January 2022 | Atsme's topic ban from post-WWII Anti fascism in the United States is provisionally lifted for a period of twelve months. If at any point before 1 January 2023 an uninvolved administrator feels that Atsme is not able to edit productively in this area, they may re-impose the topic ban. | motionACN announcement |
| Scientology | 4 January 2022 | 7 January 2022 |
Remedy 2 of the Scientology arbitration case, "Church of Scientology IP addresses blocked", is hereby rescinded. Any remaining blocks currently in force may be lifted or appealed according to the unblocking policy. |
Enacted motionACN announcement |
2021
| Topic | Opened | Closed | Outcome | Relevant links |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Horn of Africa | 14 November 2021 | 29 November 2021 | The already authorized standard discretionary sanctions for all pages relating to the Horn of Africa (defined as including Ethiopia, Somalia, Eritrea, Djibouti, and adjoining areas if involved in related disputes), broadly construed, are made permanent. The committee declines to open a full case. Any further amendments or requests for clarification should be made following the normal method. | motionACN announcement |
| Temporary checkuser privileges for scrutineers | 1 November 2021 | 2 November 2021 | On recommendation of the Electoral Commission, temporary English Wikipedia checkuser privileges are granted to stewards Sotiale, Martin Urbanec, and Tks4Fish solely for the purpose of their acting as scrutineers in the 2021 Arbitration Committee election. | motionACN announcement |
| Extended confirmed restriction omnibus motion | 11 September 2021 | 20 September 2021 | In order to standardize the extended confirmed restriction, the following subsection is added to the "Enforcement" section of the Arbitration Committee's procedures:
Remedy 7 of the Antisemitism in Poland case ("500/30 restriction") is retitled "Extended confirmed restriction" and amended to read as follows:
Remedy 5 of the Palestine-Israel articles 4 case (ARBPIA General Sanctions) is amended by replacing item B with the following:
|
motion |
| Palestine-Israel articles 4 | 28 June 2021 | 12 July 2021 | The phrase "other internal project discussions", as used in Remedy 5 of the Palestine-Israel articles 4 case ("ARBPIA General Sanctions"), shall be construed to include requested moves. |
motionACN Announcement |
| Interaction ban between Praxidicae and Ritchie333 | 1 July 2021 | 3 July 2021 | In the interest of furthering discussion around the UCOC, admin sanctions, and other such reforms, the interaction ban between Praxidicae and Ritchie333 is amended after the last sentence to add Parties may discuss the existence of the ban, and examine its implications, but remain forbidden from discussing each other and interacting with each other. |
motionACN Announcement |
| COVID-19 | 8 June 2021 | 16 June 2021 | (i) The community COVID-19 general sanctions are hereby rescinded and are replaced by standard discretionary sanctions, which are authorized for all edits about, and all articles related to, COVID-19, broadly construed. (ii) All sanctions in force when this remedy is enacted are endorsed and will become standard discretionary sanctions governed by the standard procedure from the moment of enactment. (iii) Notifications issued under COVID-19 general sanctions become alerts for twelve months from their date of issue, then expire. (iv) All existing and past sanctions and restrictions placed under COVID-19 general sanctions will be transcribed by the arbitration clerks in the arbitration enforcement log. (v) Any requests for enforcement that may be open when this remedy is enacted shall proceed, but any remedy that is enacted should be enacted as a discretionary sanction. (vi) Administrators who have enforced the COVID-19 general sanctions are thanked for their work and asked to continue providing administrative assistance enforcing discretionary sanctions and at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. | motionACN Announcement |
| Antisemitism in Poland | 9 May 2021 | Remedy 5 of the Antisemitism in Poland case ("Article sourcing expectations") is amended to read as follows: The Arbitration Committee advises that administrators may impose "reliable-source consensus required" as a discretionary sanction on all articles on the topic of Polish history during World War II (1933-45), including the Holocaust in Poland. On articles where "reliable-source consensus required" is in effect, when a source that is not a high quality source (an article in a peer-reviewed scholarly journals, an academically focused book by a reputable publisher, and/or an article published by a reputable institution) is added and subsequently challenged by reversion, no editor may reinstate the source without first obtaining consensus on the talk page of the article in question or consensus about the reliability of the source in a discussion at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. |
motionACN Announcement | |
| User:Carlossuarez46 | 1 April 2021 | 8 April 2021 | The "Carlossuarez46" request for arbitration is accepted. Given that Carlossuarez46 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) has retired from the English Wikipedia, this case will be opened but suspended for a period of three months, during which time Carlossuarez46 will be temporarily desysopped.
If Carlossuarez46 should return to active editing on the English Wikipedia during this time and request that this case be resumed, the Arbitration Committee shall unsuspend the case by motion and it will proceed through the normal arbitration process. Such a request may be made by email to arbcom-en@wikimedia.org or at the clerks' noticeboard. If such a request is not made within three months of this motion, this case shall be automatically closed, and Carlossuarez46 shall remain desysopped. Carlossuarez46 may regain the administrative tools at any time only via a successful request for adminship. |
motionACN announcement |
| Kurds and Kurdistan | 25 February 2021 | 26 February 2021 | The phrase "articles related to" in the topic bans for GPinkerton, Thepharoah17, عمرو بن كلثوم, and Supreme Deliciousness are struck, to clarify that the bans are not limited to article-space. | motionACN Announcement |
| Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures | 18 February 2021 | 26 February 2021 | Once a case has been accepted, the Arbitration Committee will instruct the clerks on the name, structure, and timetable for a case so they may create the applicable pages. The name is for ease of identification only and may be changed by the Committee at any time. The Committee will designate one or more arbitrators to be drafting arbitrator(s) for the case, to ensure it progresses, and to act as a designated point of contact for any matters arising.
The standard structure of a case will include the following phases and timetable:
The timetable and structure of the case may be adjusted (e.g. a phase may be extended, closed early, added or removed) by the initiative of the Committee, at the discretion of the drafting arbitrator(s) during the case. Drafting arbitrator(s) shall also have broad authority to set case-specific rules regarding the running of the phases (e.g. enforce threaded discussions, set a word limit for participants in the workshop phase) to enforce the expectation of behavior during a case. Parties to the case may also petition for changes to the timetable and structure for a case. Implementation note: upon this motion passing, Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Procedures#Target_timetable_for_proceedings will be removed, the final paragraph of Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Procedures#Opening_of_proceedings will be struck, and a new section, with the heading "Timetable and case structure", will be added to the Committee's procedures with the above text. In the announcement for this change, the Committee will note its intention to incorporate the analysis of evidence into the evidence phase as part of the standard structure and to make the workshop phase optional. The Workshop phase will be omitted for some cases, such as those examining the conduct of one or two editors. |
motionACN announcement |
| Gender and sexuality | 17 February 2021 | 22 February 2021 | In order to promote consistency and reduce confusion, the arbitration clerks are directed to create a new arbitration case page under the name Gender and sexuality, with the following sole remedy: "Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all edits about, and all pages related to, any gender-related dispute or controversy and associated people." For the avoidance of doubt, GamerGate is considered a gender-related dispute or controversy for the purposes of this remedy.
Clause (i) of Remedy 1.1 of the GamerGate case ("Discretionary sanctions") is rescinded. Sanctions previously issued in accordance with Remedy 1.1 of the GamerGate case will from this time on be considered Gender and sexuality sanctions. This motion does not invalidate any action previously taken under the GamerGate discretionary sanctions authorization. In order to preserve previous clarifications about the scope of these discretionary sanctions:
The index of topics with an active discretionary sanctions provision will be updated with the new title, but previous references to GamerGate need not be updated. The arbitration enforcement log, however, should be updated for the current year. For prior years, the new name should be noted along with the old one. The arbitration clerks are also directed to update templates and documentation pages with the new name as appropriate. This motion should be recorded on the case pages of the GamerGate case, the new Gender and sexuality case, the Manning naming dispute case, and the Interactions at GGTF case. |
motionACN Announcement |
| MONGO | 5 February 2021 | 12 February 2021 | Remedy 1 of the MONGO case ("Links to ED") is amended to read, "Links to, and/or content from, Encyclopædia Dramatica may be removed wherever found on Wikipedia, absent explicit consensus for their inclusion." | motionACN Announcement |
| American politics 2 | 10 January 2021 | 19 January 2021 | Remedy 1.2 of the American politics 2 case ("Discretionary sanctions (1932 cutoff)") is retitled "Discretionary sanctions (1992 cutoff)" and amended by replacing the words "post-1932 politics of the United States" with "post-1992 politics of the United States". Any sanctions or other restrictions imposed under the discretionary sanctions authorization to date shall remain in force unaffected. | motionACN Announcement |
2020
| Topic | Date enacted | Permalink to motion | Outcome | Other relevant links (including ACN) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| The Rambling Man | 30 December 2020 | motion | The Rambling Man topic ban from the Did You Know? process (Remedy 9 in The Rambling Man case) is lifted, subject to a probationary period lasting six months from the date this motion is enacted. During this period, any uninvolved administrator may re-impose the topic ban as an arbitration enforcement action, subject to appeal only to the Arbitration Committee. If the probationary period elapses without incident, the topic ban is to be considered permanently lifted. | ACN announcement |
| Antisemitism in Poland | 18 December 2020 | motion | Remedy 4b of Antisemitism in Poland ("Volunteer Marek topic-banned") is rescinded. | ACN announcement |
| Temporary checkuser privileges for scrutineers | 20 October 2020 | Motion | On recommendation of the Electoral Commission, temporary English Wikipedia checkuser privileges are granted to stewards Mardetanha, Martin Urbanec, and Tks4Fish solely for the purpose of their acting as scrutineers in the 2020 Arbitration Committee election. | ACN announcement |
| Portals | 15 October 2020 | motion | Remedies 1 & 2 of the Portals case are temporarily lifted, only at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/BrownHairedGirl 2 and related pages, and only until the conclusion of the RfA process. | ACN announcement |
| Abortion | 22 September 2020 | motion | The one-revert restriction on all articles related to abortion, authorized by the community here and modified by the Arbitration Committee in the Abortion arbitration case, is formally taken over by the committee and vacated. Discretionary sanctions remain authorized for all pages related to abortion, broadly construed. | ACN announcement |
| Amendment to arbitration procedures: prohibition of multiple roles | 9 September 2020 | motion | Based on the outcome of the community discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RFC: Multiple roles for active arbitrators, the Arbitration Committee procedures are amended by adding a new Section 1.6, providing:
|
ACN announcement |
| North8000 | 26 August 2020 | motion | North8000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was restricted by motion in December 2016 (Motion regarding North80000). Recognizing North8000's productive contributions and renewed voluntary commitments, the restrictions are suspended for one year, during which time the restrictions may be re-imposed (individually or entirely) upon request to WP:ARCA if warranted. Any restrictions not reimposed will automatically expire at the end of the one year period. | ACN announcement |
| Climate change | 12 August 2020 | motion | The restriction imposed on Hipocrite (talk · contribs) by Remedy 14 of the Climate change case ("Hypocrite topic-banned") is hereby lifted. | ACN announcement |
| Brahma Kumaris | 17 July 2020 | motion | Remedy 3 of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Brahma Kumaris, "article probation", is hereby terminated. | ACN announcement |
| Genetically modified organisms | 2 July 2020 | motion | David Tornheim's topic ban from glyphosate, imposed as a discretionary sanction on 28 July 2016 and amended on 23 April 2019, is rescinded. | ACN announcement |
| Antisemitism in Poland: Motion (May 2020) | 30 May 2020 | motion | 500/30 restriction: All IP editors, users with fewer than 500 edits, and users with less than 30 days' tenure are prohibited from editing articles related to the history of Jews and antisemitism in Poland during World War II (1933–45), including the Holocaust in Poland. This prohibition may be enforced preemptively by use of extended confirmed protection (ECP), or by other methods such as reverts, pending changes protection, and appropriate edit filters. Reverts made solely to enforce the 500/30 rule are not considered edit warring.
|
ACN announcement |
| Updates to appeals procedure | n/a | motion | Not carried; archived 24 February | Archive link |
| Ricky81682 block appeal | 17 January 2020 | motion | Ricky81682 (talk · contribs) is unblocked subject to an indefinite account restriction: Ricky81682 is restricted to one account, and may not edit anonymously. | ACN announcement |
| Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 11#Crouch, Swale ban appeal | 08 January 2020 | motion | The request for modification of Crouch, Swale's restrictions is declined. Going forward, he may not request relaxation of his restrictions more frequently than once per year, with the next request not taking place prior to 1 January 2021. In addition, he should ensure that there is consensus for any future large creations of articles, prior to making the request for relaxation of his restrictions | ACN announcement |
| Magioladitis 2 | 08 January 2020 | motion | Remedy 3: AWB prohibition of the Magioladitis case is lifted subject to a probationary period lasting 1 year from the date this motion is enacted. During this period, any uninvolved administrator may re-impose the remedy as an arbitration enforcement action, subject to appeal only to the Arbitration Committee. If the probationary period elapses without incident, the restriction is to be considered permanently lifted. For clarity, Magioladitis (talk · contribs)' prohibition on making cosmetic edits will remain in force. | ACN announcement |
| The Rambling Man | 08 January 2020 | motion | Remedy 4 (The Rambling Man prohibited) of The Rambling Man arbitration case is vacated, together with the associated special enforcement provisions. | ACN announcement |
2019
| Topic | Date enacted | Permalink to motion | Outcome | Other relevant links (including ACN) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Antisemitism in Poland | 01 December 2019 | motion | Remedy 2 of Antisemitism in Poland ("Icewhiz and Volunteer Marek interaction-banned") is renamed Icewhiz banned from interacting with Volunteer Marek and amended to read:
|
ACN announcement |
| Sexology | 23 November 2019 | motion | Remedy 2.1 of Sexology ("Jokestress topic-banned from human sexuality") is amended to read:
|
ACN announcement |
| Temporary checkuser permission for election scrutineers | 25 October 2019 | Motion | Temporary Checkuser rights are granted to Base, Shanmugamp7, and Einsbor for the purpose of their acting as Scrutineers in the 2019 Arbitration Committee election. | ACN announcement |
| Palestine-Israel articles 4 | 16 August 2019 | motion | The committee opens proceedings on pages relating to the Arab–Israeli conflict, naming it Palestine-Israel articles 4. Proceedings will take place in the normal form. Evidence (and related submissions, including at the Workshop) must remain within the proceedings scope. The following matters will initially be within scope:
|
ACN announcement |
| The Rambling Man | 9 August 2019 | motion | In remedy 9, "The Rambling Man prohibited", the first paragraph is amended to read:
|
ACN announcement |
| Discretionary sanctions | 16 July 2019 | motion | The Awareness section of the discretionary sanctions procedure is modified to the following:
No editor may be sanctioned unless they are aware that discretionary sanctions are in force for the area of conflict. An editor is aware if:
|
ACN announcement |
| Discretionary sanctions | 19 April 2019 | motion | The following text is added to the "Important notes" section of the standard provision on appeals and modifications, replacing the current text of the fourth note:
|
ACN announcement |
| WP:AC/P | 10 April 2019 | motion |
Since November 2018, six accounts have been desysopped under the Level I desysopping procedures as compromised administrator accounts. The Arbitration Committee reminds administrators that they are required to "have strong passwords and follow appropriate personal security practices." The current policy on security of administrator accounts provides that "a compromised admin account will be blocked and its privileges removed on grounds of site security" and "in certain circumstances, the revocation of privileges may be permanent." The Arbitration Committee resolves that the return of administrator privileges to a compromised account is not automatic. The committee's procedure at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures § Removal of permissions, subsection Return of permissions, is replaced by the following:
|
ACN announcement |
| Necrothesp | 10 April 2019 | motion | On March 14, 2019, the administrator permissions of Necrothesp (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) were temporarily removed as a suspected compromised account under the Level 1 desysopping procedures.
Following discussion concerning account security, and pursuant to the procedures for return of revoked permissions, the Arbitration Committee resolves the following:
The administrator permissions of Necrothesp (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) are restored, provided he enables two-factor authentication on his account. |
ACN announcement |
| WP:ARBPOL | 08 April 2019 | motion | Pursuant to the arbitration policy's section on "Ratification and amendment", the Arbitration Committee resolves that the following change to the arbitration policy will be submitted for formal ratification by community referendum:
The final paragraph of the "Conduct of arbitrators" section of the arbitration policy is amended as follows:
This amendment to the arbitration policy will enter into force once it receives majority support, with at least one hundred editors voting in favour of adopting it. Until this amendment is ratified, the existing arbitration policy remains in effect. |
ACN announcement |
| India-Pakistan | 04 April 2019 | motion | SheriffIsInTown's topic ban from pages related to conflict between India and Pakistan is lifted, subject to a probationary period lasting six months from the date this motion is enacted. During this period, any uninvolved administrator may re-impose the topic ban as an arbitration enforcement action, subject to appeal only to the Arbitration Committee. If the probationary period elapses without incident, the topic ban is to be considered permanently lifted. | ACN announcement |
| Conduct of Mister Wiki editors | 19 March 2019 | motion | Remedy 2.1 of the Conduct of Mister Wiki editors arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t) (Salvidrim's prohibition from reviewing articles for creation drafts) is rescinded. He may apply for use of the AfC helper script as usual at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation/Participants. | ACN announcement |
| Palestine-Israel articles | 14 March 2019 | motion | The General 1RR prohibition of the Palestine-Israel articles arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t) is amended to read:
The community is encouraged to place the {{ARBPIA 1RR editnotice}} on any page that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. |
ACN announcement |
| Waldorf education | 4 March 2019 | motion | A motion proposing to rescind discretionary sanctions on Waldorf education was withdrawn. | – |
| Manning naming dispute and Interactions at GGTF | 22 February 2019 | motion | Remedy 15 of the Manning naming dispute case was amended. Clause 2 of the February 2015 motion in the Interactions at GGTF case was struck and rescinded. A discretionary-sanctions amendment (including logging instructions) was added to the Interactions at GGTF case. | ACN announcement |
| Eastern Europe and Macedonia | 17 February 2019 | motion | At Amendment II in Eastern Europe, Eastern Europe is replaced as text by Eastern Europe or the Balkans. Remedy 3 in Macedonia is superseded by this amendment. | ACN announcement |
| Crouch, Swale restrictions appeal | 10 February 2019 | motion | Crouch, Swale is permitted to create new pages outside of mainspace such as talkpages and AfD pages. | ACN announcement |
| Ferahgo the Assassin restrictions appeal | 31 January 2019 | motion |
|
ACN announcement |
| Crouch, Swale restrictions appeal | 18 January 2019 | motion | Crouch, Swale is permitted to create one new article (including redirects and disambiguation pages) every seven days in his userspace or the draft namespace before submitting it to Articles for Creation for review. | ACN announcement |
| Lightbreather | 9 January 2019 | motion | The interaction ban between Hell in a Bucket (talk · contribs) and Lightbreather (talk · contribs) taken over in the Lightbreather case is rescinded. | ACN announcement |
2018
| Topic | Date enacted | Permalink to motion | Outcome | Other relevant links (including ACN) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Committee standard procedures for enforcement | 13 December 2018 | Motion | The following text is added to the "Modifications by administrators" section of the standard provision on appeals and modifications:
For clarity, this change applies to all current uses of standard provision, including in closed cases. |
ACN announcement |
| The Rambling Man | 13 December 2018 | Motion | The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that the The Rambling Man arbitration case be amended as follows:
In remedy 4, "The Rambling Man prohibited", the first paragraph is amended to read:
and the third paragraph is amended to read:
A note will be added at the top of the Enforcement section highlighting the special enforcement requirements of remedy 4. The following is added as a remedy to the case:
The following provisions are added in the Enforcement section of the case:
|
ACN announcement |
| Palestine-Israel articles | 21 November 2018 | Motion | The General 1RR prohibition of the Palestine-Israel articles arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t) is amended to read:
Further, the Palestine-Israel articles arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t) is amended to include the following remedies:
|
ACN announcement |
| Committee standing procedure on functionary permissions and inactivity | 30 September 2018 | Motion | The standing procedure on functionary permissions and inactivity is amended as follows:
Original: Accordingly, the minimum activity level for each tool (based on the preceding three months' activity) shall be five logged actions, including at least one community-requested logged action. Examples of community-requested actions include suppression requests via the oversight-en-wp OTRS queue; CheckUser requests through Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations, those stemming from account creation requests, those made in response to threads at an administrative noticeboard, or posted on a CheckUser's personal user talk page. These activity requirements do not apply to: sitting members of the Arbitration Committee; or holders who have temporarily relinquished access, including CheckUsers or Oversighters who accept appointment to the Ombudsman Commission. and: Holders of the permissions are also expected to:
Replaced with: Accordingly, the minimum activity level for each tool (based on the preceding three months' activity) shall be five logged actions. Consideration will be given for activity and actions not publicly logged, such as responding to requests on the Checkuser or Oversight OTRS queues; participation on list discussions; activity at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations; responding to account creation requests; and responding to Checkuser or Oversight requests on administrative noticeboards, UTRS queue, and user talk pages. These activity requirements do not apply to: (a) sitting members of the Arbitration Committee; (b) holders using the permissions for audit purposes; or (c) holders who have temporarily relinquished access, including CheckUsers or Oversighters who accept appointment to the Ombudsman Commission. and: Holders of the permissions are also expected to:
|
ACN announcement |
| Winhunter | 6 September 2018 | Motion | Because Winhunter has been desysopped for inactivity, this case is closed pursuant to the previously adopted motion. Because the automatic desysopping occurred while Winhunter was the subject of a pending arbitration case, he may regain administrator status only by passing a new request for adminship. | ACN announcement |
| BLP issues on British politics articles | 9 August 2018 | Motion | The "Philip Cross topic banned" remedy in the BLP issues on British politics articles case is modified to read as follows:
|
ACN announcement |
| Discretionary sanctions procedure | 5 July 2018 | Motion | The following sentence is added to the end of the "Alerts" section of Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions: "Editors may not use automated tools or bot accounts to issue alerts." The Arbitration Committee is aware of a discussion taking place at the Village Pump regarding issuing discretionary sanctions alerts via bot. As this discussion has a potentially large impact on how discretionary sanctions operate, the Arbitration Committee has decided to clarify existing procedures to note that alerts are expected to be manually given at this time. This is intended as a clarification of existing practices and expectations, not a change in current practice. The Arbitration Committee will fully review the advisory Village Pump discussion after completion and take community comments under consideration. |
ACN announcement |
| Macedonia 2 | 17 June 2018 | Motion | The Arbitration Committee clarifies that Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Macedonia) may be modified by an RfC discussion. The discussion must remain open for at least one month after it is opened, and the consensus must be assessed by a panel of three uninvolved contributors. In assessing the consensus, the panel is instructed to disregard any opinion which does not provide a clear and reasonable rationale explained by reference to the principles of naming conventions and of disambiguation, or which is inconsistent with the principles of the neutral point of view policy or the reliable sources guideline. | ACN announcement |
| Clarification request: The Troubles | 8 June 2018 | Motion | All sanctions placed under remedy 3.2 of The Troubles prior to its replacement with remedy 5 are considered discretionary sanctions. Specifically, the 1RR sanction affecting the topic area is considered a form of page restriction placed as a discretionary sanction, and the additional awareness requirements regarding page restrictions apply. | ACN announcement |
| Civility in infobox discussions | 8 May 2018 | Motion | Remedy 1.1 of the Civility in infobox discussions case is amended to replace dot point 3: *making more than one comment in discussing the inclusion or exclusion of an infobox on a given article.with the following: * making more than one comment in a discussion, where that discussion is primarily about the inclusion or exclusion of an infobox on a given article. |
ACN announcement |
| Misc. discussion | 25 April 2018 | Motion | James J. Lambden and Volunteer Marek are now subject to an indefinite two-way interaction ban, broadly construed. | ACN announcement |
| Misuse of Administrator Tools case request | 18 April 2018 | Motion | The Arbitration Committee reminds administrators that they should generally not use administrative tools in situations where good-faith editors disagree about how a content policy should be applied and the administrator holds a strong opinion on the dispute. Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs) is admonished for edit-warring in support of their preferred version of Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity/Outreach/April 2018 ([6][7][8]). He is advised that future similar conduct may result in sanctions. | ACN announcement |
| MapSGV topic ban | 7 April 2018 | Motion | Topic ban lifted | ACN announcement |
| Catflap08 and Hijiri88 | 18 February 2018 | Motion | Remedy 5 (Hijiri88: 1RR) of the Catflap08 and Hijiri88 arbitration case is suspended for a period of six months. During the period of suspension, this restriction may be reinstated by any uninvolved administrator, as an arbitration enforcement action, should Hijiri88 fail to adhere to any normal editorial process or expectations related to edit-warring or disruptive editing. After six months from the date this motion is enacted, if the restriction has not been reinstated or any reinstatements have been successfully appealed to the Arbitration Committee, the restriction will automatically lapse. | ACN announcement |
| Doncram | 21 January 2018 | Motion | Remedy 5 (SarekOfVulcan–Doncram interaction ban) of the Doncram arbitration case is suspended for a period of six months. During the period of suspension, this restriction may be reinstated by any uninvolved administrator as an arbitration enforcement action should either SarekOfVulcan or Doncram fail to adhere to Wikipedia editing standards in their interactions with each other. Appeal of such a reinstatement would follow the normal arbitration enforcement appeals process. After six months from the date this motion is enacted, if the restriction has not been reinstated or any reinstatements have been successfully appealed, the restriction will automatically lapse. | ACN announcement |
| Discretionary sanctions | 15 January 2018 | Motion | The Page restrictions section of the discretionary sanctions procedure is modified to the following:
Any uninvolved administrator may impose on any page or set of pages relating to the area of conflict page protection, revert restrictions, prohibitions on the addition or removal of certain content (except when consensus for the edit exists), or any other reasonable measure that the enforcing administrator believes is necessary and proportionate for the smooth running of the project. The enforcing administrator must log page restrictions they place.
Editors who ignore or breach page restrictions may be sanctioned by any uninvolved administrator provided that, at the time the editor ignored or breached a page restriction:
Editors using mobile devices may not see edit notices. Administrators should consider whether an editor was aware of the page restriction before sanctioning them. The Awareness section of the discretionary sanctions procedure is modified to the following: No editor may be sanctioned unless they are aware that discretionary sanctions are in force for the area of conflict. An editor is aware if:
There are additional requirements in place when sanctioning editors for breaching page restrictions. |
ACN announcement |
| Palestine-Israel articles | 4 January 2018 | Motion | The General 1RR prohibition of the Palestine-Israel articles arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t) is amended to read:
|
ACN announcement |
| Hijiri88 | 2 January 2018 | Motion | Remedy 3 (Hijiri88: Topic ban (I)) of the Catflap08 and Hijiri88 arbitration case is suspended for a period of six months. During the period of suspension, this restriction may be reinstated by any uninvolved administrator, as an arbitration enforcement action, should Hijiri88 fail to adhere to any normal editorial process or expectations in the area defined in the topic ban remedy. After six months from the date this motion is enacted, if the restriction has not been reinstated or any reinstatements have been successfully appealed to the Arbitration Committee, the restriction will automatically lapse. | ACN announcement |
2017
| Topic | Opened | Closed | Outcome | Relevant links |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Crouch, Swale ban appeal | 26 December 2017 | 31 December 2017 | Crouch, Swale (talk · contribs)'s site ban is rescinded and the following indefinite restrictions are imposed:
The standard provisions on enforcement and appeals and modifications apply to these restrictions. If a fifth is placed under these restrictions, the blocking administrator must notify the Arbitration Committee of the block via a Request for Clarification and Amendment so that the unban may be reviewed. Crouch, Swale may appeal these unban conditions every 6 months from the date this motion passes. |
Motion |
| Crosswiki issues | 31 October 2017 | 27 November 2017 | (A) Whether and how information from Wikidata should be used on English Wikipedia is an ongoing subject of editorial disputes, and is not specifically addressed by current English Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Aspects of these disputes may include disagreements over who should decide whether and when Wikidata content should be included, the standards to be used in making those decisions, and the proper role, if any, of the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) in connection with this issue.
(B) To allow the English Wikipedia community to decide the policy issues involved, the Arbitration Committee recommends that a request for comment (RfC) be opened.
(C) While the RfC is being prepared and it is pending, editors should refrain from taking any steps that might create a fait accompli situation (i.e., systematic Wikidata-related edits on English Wikipedia that would be difficult to reverse without undue effort if the RfC were to decide that a different approach should be used).
(D) Standard discretionary sanctions are authorised for all discussions about the integration of Wikidata on the English Wikipedia for a period of one year from the enactment of this motion, unless ended earlier by the Arbitration Committee.
(E) Editors should abide by high standards of user conduct, including remaining civil and avoiding personal attacks, in the RfC and in all other comments on Wikidata-related issues. Editors who are knowledgeable and/or passionate about the issues are encouraged to participate and share their expertise and opinions, but no individual editor's comments should overwhelm or "bludgeon" the discussion.
(F) The request for an arbitration case is declined at this time, but may be reopened if issues suitable for ArbCom remain following the RfC. |
Motion |
| Temporary checkuser permission for election scrutineers | 24 November 2017 | 26 November 2017 | Temporary Checkuser rights are granted to Matiia, RadiX, Shanmugamp7, and (alternate if necessary) Mardetanha for the purpose of their acting as Scrutineers in the 2017 Arbitration Committee election. | Motion |
| Sexology | 8 Nov 2017 | 25 Nov 2017 | Remedy 4.1 ("Discretionary sanctions") of the Sexology case is rescinded. Any sanctions or other restrictions imposed under this remedy to date shall remain in force unaffected. | motion |
| The Rambling Man prohibition amendment | 25 Jul 2017 | 18 Sep 2017 | Remedy 4 (The Rambling Man prohibited) of the The Rambling Man arbitration case is modified as follows:
is amended to read
|
Announcement |
| Soap unbanned | 19 Aug 17 | In 2015, Soap (talk · contribs) was desysopped and banned indefinitely. Following a successful appeal to the Arbitration Committee, he is unbanned. As indicated in the original announcement, he may only regain his administrative tools following approval from the Arbitration Committee, and a successful request for adminship. | Announcement | |
| ARBPIA "consensus" provision modified | 14 March 2017 | 18 May 2017 | The consensus required restriction in the Palestine-Israel articles case is modified to read as follows:
|
Notification |
| Standardising arbitration enforcement procedures | 15 April 2017 | 21 April 2017 | The following sections are moved (word for word) from the Arbitration Committee's discretionary sanctions procedure to the Committee's procedures page (under the "Enforcement" heading) and as such apply to all arbitration enforcement actions (including discretionary sanctions and actions enforcing arbitration case remedies):
A note is to be placed prominently on the discretionary sanctions procedure noting that the Enforcement provisions on the Committee's procedures page also apply to the application and enforcement of discretionary sanctions. The "Appeals and modifications" in the discretionary sanctions procedure is modified to reflect the current version standard provision for appeals and modifications, including changes made to it in future amendments (Template:Arbitration standard provisions may be used). |
Notification |
| OccultZone and others | 15 April 2017 | 21 April 2017 | The indefinite siteban of OccultZone (talk · contribs) imposed in remedy 1 of the "OccultZone and others" arbitration case is rescinded with the following restrictions:
These restrictions may be appealed to the Committee in no less than six months. |
Notification |
| Jytdog | 21 February 2017 | The topic ban from "all matters related to COI editing" imposed on Jytdog (talk · contribs) as part of the August 2016 unblock conditions is lifted. However, Jytdog is strongly warned any subsequent incident in which you reveal non-public information about another user will result in an indefinite block or siteban by the Arbitration Committee. To avoid ambiguity, "non-public information" includes (but is not limited to) any information about another user including legal names and pseudonyms, workplace, job title, or contact details, which that user has not disclosed themselves on the English Wikipedia or other WMF project. | Notification | |
| Article titles and capitalization | 11 February 2017 | In remedy 4.2 of the 2012 Article titles and capitalisation case, standard discretionary sanctions were authorized for all pages related to the English Wikipedia Manual of Style and article titles policy, broadly construed.By way of clarification, the scope of this remedy refers to discussions about the policies and guidelines mentioned, and does not extend to individual move requests, move reviews, article talk pages, or other venues at which individual article names may be discussed. Disruption in those areas should be handled by normal administrative means. |
Notification | |
| GamerGate | 8 February 2017 | The topic-ban placed on NorthBySouthBaranof in the GamerGate case is terminated. Discretionary sanctions remain authorized to address any user misconduct in the relevant topic-area. | Notification | |
| Ed Poor 2 | 6 February 2017 | In remedy 1.1 of the 2006 Ed Poor 2 case, Ed Poor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was placed on probation. Under the terms of the probation, he was banned from two topics in 2008 and 2009. The probation and topic bans under its terms are now rescinded. | Notification | |
| JustBerry | 6 February 2017 | JustBerry (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was unblocked by the Ban Appeals Subcommittee in July 2013 with a one-account restriction. Following a successful appeal to the Arbitration Committee, the one-account restriction for JustBerry is rescinded. They are reminded that any alternate accounts and/or bots must adhere to WP:SOCK#LEGIT and WP:BOTPOL. | Notification | |
| Yunshui | 25 January 2017 | Yunshui (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), voluntarily retired in November 2015. Their checkuser and oversight permissions were removed without prejudice against requesting reinstatement in the future. They are reappointed as a checkuser and oversighter following a request to the committee for the return of both permissions. | Notification | |
| Race and intelligence | 21 January 2017 | Mathsci (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was unbanned in April 2016 under the condition that he refrain from making any edit about, and from editing any page relating to the race and intelligence topic area, broadly construed. This restriction is now rescinded. The interaction bans to which Mathsci is a party remain in force. |
Notification |
2016
| Topic | Opened | Closed | Outcome | Relevant links |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Palestine-Israel articles | 26 December 2016 | The general 1RR restriction in the Palestine-Israel articles case is modified to read as follows:
|
Notification | |
| Palestine-Israel articles 3 | 26 December 2016 | Remedy 2 (General Prohibition) is modified to read as follows:
|
Notification | |
| Gun control | 21 December 2016 | North8000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was site-banned in 2014 in the Gun Control case. He was topic-banned from the gun control topic area in the same case. Prior to this, he had been topic-banned from the subject of the Tea Party movement in the Tea Party case in 2013, and had agreed to a one-year voluntary restriction from the homophobia article and its talk page in 2012.
North8000 is unbanned with the following restrictions:
These restrictions are to be enforced under the standard enforcement and appeals and modifications provisions and may be appealed to the committee after six months. |
Notification | |
| Austrian economics | 19 December 2016 | The discretionary sanctions on Austrian economics are rescinded. | Notification | |
| Darkfrog24 | 12 December 2016 | Darkfrog24's block appeal is denied. | Notification | |
| Fæ | 12 December 2016 | Fæ's topic ban is suspended for six months. | Notification | |
| Ricky81682 | 5 October 2016 | For abuse of multiple accounts and failure to remain accountable, Ricky81682 is desysoped and may regain the tools via a successful request for adminship. | Notification | |
| GamerGate | 22 October 2016 | Since Zad68 (who imposed extended confirmed protection of Talk:Gamergate controversy as a discretionary sanction) is currently inactive, the discretionary sanction on Talk:Gamergate controversy (not the article) is lifted to allow the community to modify the protection level in accordance with the Wikipedia:Protection policy. | Notification | |
| Doncram | 5 November 2016 | Point 4 (Doncram restricted) of the motion in May 2016 is suspended for a period of six months. During the period of suspension, this restriction may be reinstated by any uninvolved administrator as an arbitration enforcement action should Doncram fail to adhere to Wikipedia editing standards in the National Register of Historic Places topic area, broadly construed. Appeal of such a reinstatement would follow the normal arbitration enforcement appeals process. After six months from the date this motion is enacted, if the restriction has not been reinstated or any reinstatements have been successfully appealed, the restriction will automatically lapse. | Notification | |
| Race and intelligence amendment request | 12 August 2016 | 1 September 2016 | Ferahgo the Assassin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was topic-banned from the race and intelligence topic area in October 2010, site-banned in May 2012, and unbanned with editing restrictions in March 2014.
|
Motion |
| GoodDay amendment request | 10 July 2016 | 11 August 2016 | Remedy 1.1 (GoodDay topic-banned from diacritics) in the GoodDay arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t) is suspended for the period of one year from the date of passage of this motion. During the period of suspension, any uninvolved administrator may, as an arbitration enforcement action, reinstate the topic ban on GoodDay should GoodDay fail to follow Wikipedia behavior and editing standards while editing concerning diacritics, broadly construed, or participating in any discussions about the same. In addition, the topic ban will be reinstated should GoodDay be validly blocked by any uninvolved administrator for misconduct related to diacritics, broadly construed. Such a reinstatement may only be appealed to the Arbitration Committee. After one year from the date of passage of this motion, if the ban has not been reinstated, or any reinstatements have been successfully appealed, the topic ban will be vacated. | Archived discussion |
| Extendedconfirmed users | 11 April 2016 | 15 May 2016 | Administrators are not permitted to remove the extendedconfirmed user group as a discretionary sanction.
Administrators must not remove the extendedconfirmed user group as means of bypassing defined arbitration enforcement procedures (for example, removing the user group as a normal administrative action to avoid banning an editor from the Gamergate controversy article). |
Enacted motion & Archived copy |
| Extended confirmed protection | 11 April 2016 | 15 May 2016 | On April 5, the rollout of the new extendedconfirmed user group began. This group is being automatically applied to accounts meeting both of the following criteria: at least 500 edits, registered at least 30 days ago. A corresponding new protection level, currently called "extended confirmed protection", has been implemented that restricts editing to members of this user group.
Extended confirmed protection may only be applied in response to persistent sockpuppetry or continued use of new, disruptive accounts where other methods (such as semi protection) have not controlled the disruption. This provision does not apply to a page or topic area which has been placed under 30/500 protection by the Arbitration Committee. |
Enacted motion & Archived copy |
| Doncram case amendment | 10 April 2016 | 11 May 2016 | The Doncram arbitration case is amended as follows:
|
Motion |
| Oversight block appeals (Oversight-l) | 27 March 2016 | 4 May 2016 | Appeals of blocks that have been marked by an oversighter as oversight blocks should be sent to the oversight team via email (Oversight-llists.wikimedia.org) to be decided by the English Wikipedia oversighters, or to the Arbitration Committee. Blocks may still be marked by the blocking oversighter as appealable only to the Arbitration Committee, per the 2010 statement, in which case appeals must only be directed to the Arbitration Committee.
|
Motion |
| Amendment to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Ottava Rima restrictions (Ottava unbanned | 9 November 2009, 22 July 2010 | 19 April 2016 | Following a successful appeal, the amendment to the Ottava Rima restrictions case is rescinded, and Ottava Rima is unbanned. His participation on the English Wikipedia is strictly limited to:
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. |
[9] |
| Amendment to Race and Intelligence case (Mathsci unbanned) | N/A | 10 April 2016 | Following a successful appeal to the Committee the October 2013 amendment to the Race and intelligence case is rescinded and Mathsci (talk · contribs) is unbanned from the English Wikipedia. The unban has been granted on the condition that Mathsci continue to refrain from making any edit about, and from editing any page relating to the race and intelligence topic area, broadly construed. This is to be enforced as a standard topic ban. The following editing restrictions are in force indefinitely:
This motion is to be enforced under the enforcement clauses of the Race and intelligence case. |
Motion |
| Deskana's Activity | N/A | 17 February 2016 | In accordance with the standing procedure on inactivity, the checkuser permissions of Deskana (talk · contribs) are removed. The committee thanks them for their service. | Motion |
| Future Perfect at Sunrise case request | 15 January 2016 | 26 January 2016 | The Committee will communicate with the Foundation about legal options for long-term abuse cases, and recommends that the community develop best practices for communication among editors handling harassing material; many editors in good standing may be unfamiliar with specific known abusers and their activities. Notes and diffs concerning Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and The Rambling Man (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). Full case declined. | Motion |
| Amendment request for genetically modified organisms | 2 January 2016 | 19 January 2016 | The Discretionary Sanctions remedy which currently says that "Standard discretionary sanctions are authorised for all pages relating to genetically modified organisms, agricultural biotechnology, and agricultural chemicals, broadly construed" are replaced with "Standard discretionary sanctions are authorised for all pages relating to genetically modified organisms, commercially produced agricultural chemicals and the companies that produce them, broadly construed." | Motion |
| Motion to reappoint Floquenbeam an Oversighter | 23 January 2016 | 26 January 2016 | Floquenbeam (talk · contribs), who resigned from the Arbitration Committee and voluntarily gave up the Oversight permission in July 2014, is reappointed an Oversighter following a request to the Committee for the permission to be restored. | Archived discussion |
2015
| Topic | Opened | Closed | Outcome | Relevant links |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Clarification request for Genetically modified organisms | 29 December 2015 | 6 January 2016 | DrChrissy's topic ban which currently states that "DrChrissy is indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to genetically modified plants and agricultural chemicals, broadly interpreted; appeals of this ban may be requested no earlier than twelve months since the date the case closed" is replaced with "DrChrissy is indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to genetically modified organisms, commercially produced agricultural chemicals, and the companies that produce them, broadly interpreted; appeals of this ban may be requested no earlier than twelve months since the date the case closed." | Motion |
| Unban of Nadirali | 14 December 2015 | 23 December 2015 | Nadirali (talk · contribs)'s topic ban from "India, Pakistan and Afghanistan broadly construed" that is part of their unban conditions is suspended for a period of one year. During the period of suspension, this topic ban may be reinstated by any uninvolved administrator as an arbitration enforcement action should Nadirali fail to adhere to Wikipedia editing standards in the area previously covered by the topic ban. Appeal of such a reinstatement would follow the normal arbitration enforcement appeals process. After one year from the date of passage of this motion, if the topic ban has not been reinstated or any reinstatements have been successfully appealed, the topic ban will be lifted. | Motion |
| Checkuser appointments for ACE2015 | 17 November 2015 | 19 November 2015 | For the purpose of scrutineering the 2015 Arbitration Committee elections, stewards Mardetanha, Shanmugamp7, and Einsbor, appointed as scrutineers, are granted temporary local CheckUser permissions effective from the time of the passage of this motion until the certification of the election results. | Motion |
| Removal of Unused Sanctions | 13 September 2015 | 19 November 2015 | Every so often, it becomes reasonable to terminate sanctions that are no longer necessary,
|
Motion |
| Level I Desysop of Seemingly Compromised Accounts | 04 November 2015 | 04 November 2015 | The seemingly compromised accounts User:OhanaUnited and User:Salvidrim! are temporarily desysoped in accordance with Level I procedures for removing administrative tools.
|
Motion |
| Overlap of sanctions | 30 October 2015 |
|
Motion | |
| Cirt and Jayen466 | 19 October 2015 | 24 October 2015 | Notwithstanding other restrictions on his editing, Cirt (talk · contribs) may edit the article Typewriter in the Sky, its talk page, and pages related to a peer review, good article or featured article candidacy for the article. This exemption may be revoked by any uninvolved administrator as an arbitration enforcement action should Cirt fail to adhere to Wikipedia editing standards while editing under the exemption. Appeal of such a revocation would be through the normal arbitration enforcement appeals process. | Motion |
| Richard Arthur Norton | 14 September 2015 | 16 October 2015 | Richard Arthur Norton is indefinitely prohibited from creating any articles or draft articles in any namespace. Moving any page into the article namespace from any other namespace. | Motion |
| Philippe Beaudette CU/OS appointment | 30 September 2015 | 2 October 2015 | Philippe (talk · contribs), who recently retired from the post of Director of Community Advocacy at the Wikimedia Foundation, is appointed as a CheckUser and Oversighter. Philippe has experience using both tools both on the English Wikipedia and others, including supporting the community in the WikiPR case and the recent Orangemoody incident. | Motion |
| Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Liancourt Rocks | 13 September 2015 | 28 September 2015 |
|
Motion |
| Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Argentine History | 17 August 2015 | 1 September 2015 | Remedy 2 (MarshalN20 topic banned) of the Argentine History case is suspended for a period of one year. During the period of suspension, this topic ban may be reinstated by any uninvolved administrator as an arbitration enforcement action should MarshalN20 (talk · contribs) fail to adhere to Wikipedia editing standards in the area previously covered by the topic ban. Appeal of such a reinstatement would follow the normal arbitration enforcement appeals process. After one year from the date of passage of this motion, if the topic ban has not been reinstated or any reinstatements have been successfully appealed, the topic ban will be lifted. | Motion |
| Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Longevity | 30 August 2015 | Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all pages related to longevity, broadly construed. | Motion | |
| Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes | 31 May 2015 | I) Remedy 3.2 of the Infoboxes case is suspended.
II) For a six-month period Gerda Arendt may not add or restore, except for the usual exemptions, an Infobox to any article she did not create, without first either a) obtaining a clear consensus to do so on the article talkpage, or b) her proposal on the article talk page attracting no comments for 72 hours. III) During this six-month period, she must not, in the opinion of a consensus of administrators at the Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard, disrupt any discussion concerning infoboxes. IV) Gerda Arendt may be blocked for violation of parts II and III. Any such block shall cause remedy 3.2 to be unsuspended; if this is done, the blocking administrator must make the committee aware. V) If after six months Gerda Arendt has not been blocked under this motion, remedy 3.2 as well as this motion shall automatically lapse. |
Motion | |
| 2015 CU/OS appointments | 1 February 2015 | 31 March 2015 | Appointed:
|
Motions |
| Dreadstar desysop | 28 March 2015 | For conduct unbecoming an administrator, namely
Dreadstar (talk · contribs) is desysopped. He may regain the tools at any time via a successful request for adminship. |
Motion | |
| Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Argentine History | 1 February 2015 | 4 February 2015 | Notwithstanding other restrictions on their editing, Cambalachero is permitted to edit all content on the articles Raúl Alfonsín, Carlos Menem, Fernando de la Rúa, Adolfo Rodríguez Saá, Eduardo Duhalde, Néstor Kirchner, Cristina Fernández de Kirchner and Pope Francis; as well as their talk pages. They may also make any edits reasonably necessary for those articles to go through the good article, peer review, or featured article processes. If Cambalachero engages in misconduct in respect of any of these articles, this exemption may be revoked either in part or in whole by an uninvolved administrator. Any subsequent appeal should be made at the requests for clarification and amendment page. The administrator must log the revocation on the Argentine history case page, together with a rationale supported by diffs. | Motion passed to amend case |
| Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes | 20 December 2014 | 27 January 2015 | The Committee will conduct a Review focusing on matters broadly arising from the Infoboxes case. Evidence will be invited specific to the following point:
|
Motion passed to create a case |
| Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes | 20 December 2014 | 27 January 2015 | The Committee will conduct a Review focusing on matters broadly arising from the Infoboxes case. Evidence will be invited specific to the following point:
|
Motion passed to create a case |
| Motion to establish a central log for discretionary sanctions and associated amendments | 17 January 2015 | 20 January 2015 | Establishment of a central log
A central log ("log") of all sanctions placed under the discretionary sanctions procedure is to be established by the Arbitration clerks on a page designated for that purpose (Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions/Log). The log transcludes annual log sub-pages (e.g. [/Log/2015], [/Log/2014]) in reverse chronological order, with the sub-pages arranged by topic, then by month within each topic. An annual log sub-page shall be courtesy blanked once five years have elapsed since the date of the imposition of the last sanction recorded on it, though any active sanctions remain in force. Notifications and warnings issued prior to the introduction of the current procedure on 3 May 2014 are not sanctions and remain on the individual case page logs. Associated amendments to the discretionary sanctions procedure 1. Additional section to be added
2. The "Authorisation" section is amended with the following addition:
3. The "Guidance for editors" section is amended with the following addition:
4. The "Alerts" subsection is amended with the following addition:
5. The "Logging" subsection is amended with the following replacements:
|
Motion passed at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions |
| Arbitration motion regarding Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fæ | 4 January 2015 | 7 January 2015 | The Fæ case is amended to add Remedy 2.1 as follows: "Notwithstanding remedy 2, Fæ is permitted to operate bot accounts, edits from which are only to be made in accordance with Bot Approvals Group approved tasks, or an authorised trial of one." | Motion |
2014
| Topic | Opened | Closed | Outcome | Relevant links |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Arbitration motion regarding Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tea Party movement (Xenophrenic) | 2 December 2014 | 4 December 2014 | Remedy 7.1 ("Xenophrenic topic-banned") and Remedy 7.2 ("Xenophrenic interaction ban with Collect") of the Tea Party movement decision are suspended. These remedies may be enforced under the relevant enforcement provision, but effective the passage of this motion they shall only be enforced for edits by Xenophrenic (talk · contribs) that, in the enforcing administrator's judgement, would have been considered disruptive for some other reason than that they breached the remedy had it not been suspended.
Enforcement action taken pursuant to the foregoing may be appealed in the ordinary way to a consensus view of uninvolved administrators. If no such enforcement action is taken (or all such actions are taken and successfully appealed) by 01 January 2015, on that date the remedies will become formally vacated by this motion, and the case pages then amended by the clerks in the usual way. If an appeal of such enforcement action is pending on 01 January 2015, the remedies will become formally vacated only if the appeal is successful. If enforcement action is taken and an appeal is rejected, the remedies shall become unsuspended and a request for their amendment may not be re-submitted to the committee until six months have elapsed from the passage of this motion. |
Motion |
| Arbitration motion amending and rescinding some discretionary sanctions remedies | 24 November 2014 | 30 September 2014 | Following a request to amend several prior decisions to terminate discretionary sanctions provisions that may no longer be necessary,
|
Motion |
| Arbitration motion granting temporary local CheckUser permission to Arbitration Committee Election Scrutineers | 19 November 2014 | 23 September 2014 | For the purpose of scrutineering the 2014 Arbitration Committee elections, stewards User:Matanya, User:Barras, and User:Trijnstel, appointed as scrutineers, are granted temporary local CheckUser permissions effective from the time of the passage of this motion until the certification of the election results. | Motion |
| Arbitration motion regarding several cases with discretionary sanctions | 1 October 2014 | 27 October 2014 | This motion amends the wording of existing discretionary sanction remedies to make clear that they apply to all pages related to the topic, regardless of namespace.
1) The following remedies are amended by striking the word "articles" and inserting the word "pages" in its place:
2) Remedy 5 of the Monty Hall problem case is amended to read as follows: Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all pages related to the Monty Hall problem, broadly interpreted. 3) Remedy 10 of the Gibraltar case is amended to read as follows: Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all pages related to Gibraltar and its history, people, and political status, broadly interpreted. 4) Clause (b) of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Falun_Gong#Motions is amended to read as follows: Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all pages related to Falun Gong, broadly interpreted. Any existing sanctions and restrictions remain in force and are not affected by this motion. |
Motion |
| Arbitration motion regarding Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Waldorf education | 12 September 2014 | 28 September 2014 | Remedies 1 and 1.1 in the Waldorf education case (Pete K banned/Pete K ban clarified) are stricken. In lieu of these remedies, the following restriction is enacted: Pete K is topic banned indefinitely from the subject of Waldorf education, broadly construed. Enforcement of this provision shall be per the enforcement provisions in the Waldorf education case and shall be logged at the same case page. This restriction may be appealed to the Committee no less than one year from the date it is enacted, and if such appeal is unsuccessful no less than one year after the decline of the most recent failed appeal. | Motion |
| Arbitration motion regarding Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Guanaco, MarkSweep, et al | 25 August 2014 | 27 August 2014 | The second sentence of remedy 1 of the Guanaco, MarkSweep, et al case, currently reading:
In view of his previous desysopping, he may not request to have his adminship restored. is vacated and replaced with the following: Guanaco may regain the tools via a new request for adminship. |
Motion |
| Arbitration motion regarding Tea Party movement | 20 August 2014 | 24 August 2014 |
(Arthur Rubin topic banned) in the Tea Party movement case is suspended for the period of one year from the date of passage of this motion. During the period of suspension, any uninvolved administrator may as an arbitration enforcement action reinstate the topic ban for failure to follow Wikipedia's standards of conduct in the area previously covered by the ban. Such reinstatement may be appealed via the normal appeals process for arbitration enforcement actions. At one year from the date of passage of this motion, if the ban has not been reinstated or any reinstatements were successfully appealed, the topic ban will be lifted permanently. The following restriction is enacted: Arthur Rubin is restricted indefinitely to one revert per page per week in the area of the Tea Party movement. Enforcement of this restriction shall be per the enforcement provisions in the Tea Party movement case and any enforcement actions shall be logged at the same case page. This restriction may be appealed after no less than one year from the date of passage of this motion, and if unsuccessful no less than one year following the decline of that or any subsequent appeal. |
Motion |
| Arbitration motion regarding Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Argentine History | 11 July 2014 | 14 July 2014 |
Notwithstanding the sanction imposed on MarshalN20 (talk · contribs) in Argentine History, he may edit United States, its talk page, and pages related to a featured article candidacy for the article. This exemption may be withdrawn at any time by motion of the Arbitration Committee. |
Motion |
| Arbitration motion regarding Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abortion | 1 July 2014 | 12 July 2014 | Motion | |
| Arbitration Motion regarding Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Audit Subcommittee | 2 July 2014 | 4 July 2014 |
An extension to the terms of the current members of the Audit Subcommittee (AUSC) is authorised until 00:00, 27 August 2014 (UTC), to allow a functioning subcommittee until appointments are finalised. AUSC members may choose whether they wish to stay on until that period or retire with an effective date of their original term's terminus. As always, the Arbitration Committee thanks the community Audit Subcommittee members for their service. |
Motion |
| Arbitration Motion regarding Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Audit Subcommittee | 2 July 2014 | 4 July 2014 |
Audit Subcommittee (AUSC) members are provided with the CheckUser and suppression tools in order to carry out their responsibilities. Historically, community appointees to the AUSC were discouraged from routine or regular use of either tool. Since appropriate procedures exist for excluding arbitrator or community AUSC members from cases in which they may be involved, there is not a compelling reason to continue to prohibit use of the CheckUser or suppression tools. As such, members of the AUSC are explicitly permitted to use their advanced permissions for non-AUSC-related actions as allowed by the appropriate policies surrounding each permission, as members of the functionaries team. This is without regard to the presence of a backlog or time-sensitive situation. |
Motion |
| Arbitration Motion regarding Fæ | 28 April 2014 | 16 May 2014 |
Notwithstanding the existing restrictions on his editing, Fæ is permitted to edit regarding images of sexuality in ancient and medieval times, up to A.D. 1000. This permission may be withdrawn at any time by further motion of this Committee. |
Motion |
| Amendment to Falun Gong 2 (User:Ohconfucius) | 29 April 2014 | 07 May 2014 |
The Committee resolves that remedy 2 (Ohconfucius topic-banned) in the Falun Gong 2 arbitration case is suspended for the period of one year from the date of passage of this motion. During the period of suspension, any uninvolved administrator may, as an arbitration enforcement action, reinstate the topic ban on Ohconfucius should Ohconfucius fail to follow Wikipedia behavior and editing standards while editing in the topic area covered by the suspended restriction. In addition, the topic ban will be reinstated should Ohconfucius be validly blocked by any uninvolved administrator for misconduct in the topic area covered by the suspended restriction. Such a reinstatement may be appealed via the normal process for appealing arbitration enforcement actions. After one year from the date of passage of this motion, if the ban has not been reinstated or any reinstatements have been successfully appealed, the topic ban will be repealed. |
Motion |
| Standard appeals and modification provision | 02 May 2014 | 03 May 2014 |
That the updated Appeals and modifications provision become the standard provision and replace all prior discretionary sanction appeal provisions with immediate effect The updated provision was:
Appeals 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:
No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without:
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:
|
Motion: Appeals and modifications |
| Discretionary sanctions (2014) housekeeping provisions | 02 May 2014 | 03 May 2014 | That the housekeeping provisions be implemented with immediate effect These housekeeping provisions were:
|
Motion: DS (2014) housekeeping provisions |
| Discretionary sanctions (2014) | 02 May 2014 | 03 May 2014 |
That the updated Discretionary sanctions procedure supersedes and replaces all prior discretionary sanction provisions with immediate effect. See the motion page for this updated procedure. |
Motion: Discretionary sanctions (2014) |
| Rich Farmbrough | 9 April 2014 | 21 April 2014 |
The following clarification now applies In order to resolve the enforcement request referred to us, the committee resolves that:
|
Motion 3
|
| Ryulong | 17 February 2014 | 26 February 2014 |
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:
(B) For contacting administrators in private to seek either blocks on users he is in dispute with, or the performance of other administrative actions. Any further occurrence would lead to sanctions. The admonishment is left in place as warning not to return to the excessive and/or inappropriate behavior of the past, but the final sentence "Any further occurrence would lead to sanctions." is to be stricken. |
Motion 1 |
| Kevin Gorman | N/A | N/A | The committee notes that it is not in dispute that User:Kevin Gorman has acted out of process and in a manner which is incompatible with the standards to which administrators are held. The committee notes and accepts Kevin Gorman's assurances that he has learned by his mistakes and will not repeat them. Kevin Gorman is strongly admonished. The request shall be filed as "Kevin Gorman". The request for a full case is declined. | Motion |
| Kevin Gorman | N/A | N/A | The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:
|
Motion |
| Increase of protection on article protected under WP:OFFICE action | 24 January 2014 | 28 January 2014 | Kww is admonished for knowingly modifying a clearly designated Wikimedia Foundation Office action, which he did in the absence of any emergency and without any form of consultation, and is warned that he is subject to summary desysopping if he does this again.
Because the request for arbitration filed by Kww seeks review of Office actions, it is outside the purview of the Arbitration Committee and accordingly the request is declined. |
Motion |
| Ancient Egypt | 8 January 2014 | 9 January 2014 | Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized with immediate effect for all pages relating to Ancient Egyptian race controversy and associated articles, broadly construed. This supersedes the existing article probation remedy enacted in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Dbachmann#Article probation.
This motion does not affect any actions presently in effect that were taken in enforcement of the old article probation remedy. |
Motion |
2013
| Topic | Opened | Closed | Outcome | Relevant links |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Motion regarding activity levels for holders of both CU and OS tools | 30 November 2013 | 31 December 2013 | The two alternative motions ended deadlocked with equal support. Archived to allow the incoming 2014 committee to return to this later if need be. | Motion |
| Arbitration motion regard Arbitration Committe election scrutineers | 30 November 2013 | 1 December 2013 | For the purpose of scrutineering the 2013 Arbitration Committee elections, stewards User:Mathonius, User:Vituzzu, User:Matanya, and User:Tegel, appointed as scrutineers, are granted temporary local CheckUser permissions effective from the time of the passage of this motion until the certification of the election results. | Motion |
| Amendment to Manning naming dispute | 21 October 2013 | 24 October 2013 | Finding of fact 22 was replaced with the following text: "During the course of the dispute, Baseball Bugs (talk · contribs) frequently accused other participants in the dispute of misconduct [10], [11] [12]; engaged in soapboxing based on his personal view of the article subject's actions [13] [14] [15] [16]; and needlessly personalised the dispute [17]." | Motion |
| Amendment to Race and intelligence | 6 October 2013 | 13 October 2013 | "For posting inappropriate material relating to an editor with whom he is subject to an interaction restriction, Mathsci (talk · contribs) is indefinitely banned from the English Wikipedia. He may request reconsideration of the ban not less than six months from the date this motion passes." | motion |
| Amendment to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Scientology | 14 September 2013 | 19 September 2013 | The committee has decided to allow an appeal of the sanction imposed upon The Devil's Advocate (talk · contribs) on 9 July 2013 under Scientology discretionary sanctions. Therefore, that sanction is vacated with immediate effect. | motion |
| Arbitration motion regarding Mathsci | 14 September 2013 | 17 September 2013 | In May 2012 (during the Race and intelligence review), the committee prohibited SightWatcher (talk · contribs) from "participating in any discussion concerning the conduct of editors who have worked in the topic" – and therefore from discussing Mathsci's conduct. In October 2012, The Devil's Advocate (talk · contribs) and Cla68 (talk · contribs) were banned (by an administrator acting under discretionary sanctions) from interacting with Mathsci. In December 2012, Mathsci was prohibited (again under discretionary sanctions) by an arbitration enforcement administrator from requesting enforcement of these interaction bans without prior permission. The Arbitration Committee has decided to change these from one-way to two-way interaction bans. Accordingly, Mathsci (talk · contribs) is indefinitely prohibited from:
This motion should be enforced under the enforcement clauses of the Race and intelligence final decision. |
motion |
| Netoholic and Locke Cole interaction ban | 10 September 2013 | 16 September 2013 | The ban on interaction between Locke Cole and Netoholic imposed in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Locke_Cole in 2006 is terminated in light of the time that has passed without further problems. | motion |
| Cambalachero-Lecen and MarshalN20-Lecen interaction ban | 16 August 2013 | 18 August 2013 | 1) Cambalachero and Lecen are indefinitely prohibited from interacting with, or commenting on, each other anywhere on Wikipedia (subject to the ordinary exceptions). 2) MarshalN20 and Lecen are indefinitely prohibited from interacting with, or commenting on, each other anywhere on Wikipedia (subject to the ordinary exceptions). Should one of these users violate this restriction, the user may be blocked, initially for up to one month, and then with blocks increasing in duration to a maximum of one year. Appeals of blocks may be made to the imposing administrator, then to arbitration enforcement, and then to the Arbitration Committee. |
Motions |
| MarshalN20 | 7 August 2013 | 13 August 2013 | Not withstanding the sanction imposed on MarshalN20 (talk · contribs) in Argentine History, he may edit Falkland Islands, its talk page, and pages related to a featured article candidacy for the article. This exemption may be withdrawn by Basalisk (talk · contribs) at any time, or by motion of the Arbitration Committee. | Motion |
| Motion regarding Syrian civil war articles | 18 July 2013 | 21 July 2013 | In March 2013, an administrator notified the editors of Syrian civil war and several associated pages that the topic area fell under the scope of {{Arab-Israeli Arbitration Enforcement}}, which provides for a blanket one revert per editor per article per day restriction as well as discretionary sanctions. A request for clarification or amendment has now been filed raising the issue of whether the topic-area of the Syrian Civil War falls within the scope of the Arab-Israeli topic-area for purposes of arbitration enforcement. The Arbitration Committee concludes that the topic of the Syrian Civil War does not fit within the category of Arab-Israeli disputes, although certain specific issues relating to that war would fall within that topic. However, the administrator action extending discretionary sanctions and the 1RR limitation to Syrian Civil War was taken in good faith. Several editors have commented that the restrictions have been helpful to the editing environment and that they should remain in effect. No one has requested that the Arbitration Committee open a full case to consider the issue. Accordingly, the existing sanctions and restrictions applied to Syrian Civil War and related articles will continue in effect for a period not to exceed 30 days. During that period, a discussion should be opened on the Administrators' Noticeboard (WP:AN) to determine whether there is consensus to continue the restrictions in effect as community-based restrictions, either as they currently exist or in a modified form. If a consensus is not reached during the community discussion, any editor may file a request for arbitration. In the interim, any notifications and sanctions are to be logged at Talk:Syrian civil war/Log. |
Motion |
| Motion regarding GoodDay | 16 April 2013 | 22 April 2013 | In remedy 2 of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GoodDay, GoodDay (talk · contribs) was warned that "in the event of additional violations of Wikipedia's conduct policies (especially of the nature recorded in this decision as findings of fact), substantial sanctions, up to a ban from the project, may be imposed without further warning by the Arbitration Committee". It is apparent from the submissions in this amendment request that GoodDay has engaged in further violations of Wikipedia's conduct policies. Accordingly, GoodDay is banned from the English Wikipedia for a period of no less than one year. After one year has elapsed, a request may be made for the ban to be lifted. Any such request must address all the circumstances which led to this ban being imposed and demonstrate an understanding of and intention to refrain from similar actions in the future. | Motion |
| Motion to return Kevin's administrator rights | 10 March 2013 | 12 March 2013 | Based on his commitment not to reverse any block designated as an oversight-based block [18], Kevin's administrator privileges are reinstated, effective immediately. He is strongly admonished for reversing the block and warned to abide by all applicable policies governing the conduct of administrators. | Motion |
| Motion regarding the usage & retention of CU/OS permissions by community AUSC appointees | 20 February 2013 | 11 March 2013 | Audit Subcommittee (AUSC) members are provided with Checkuser and Oversight tools in order to carry out their responsibilities. Community appointees to the AUSC are discouraged from routine or regular use of either tool; however, they are permitted to use the tools in order to develop a sufficient skill level to adequately assess the actions of Checkusers and Oversighters, and may assist in addressing time-sensitive situations, or serious backlogs. Community AUSC appointees who held advanced permission(s) prior to their term will retain the permission(s) they held prior to their appointment. Community AUSC appointees who did not hold advanced permissions prior to their term may apply to retain Checkuser and/or Oversight during any Checkuser/Oversight appointment cycle that occurs during their term and, if successfully appointed, will assume their new role at the end of the AUSC term. | Motion |
| Motion regarding CheckUser/Oversight permissions and inactivity | 20 February 2013 | 11 March 2013 | The Arbitration Committee confirms the current procedures with respect to advanced permissions and inactivity as approved in March 2011, with the exception of retitling the provision "CheckUser/Oversight permissions and inactivity". | Motion |
| Motion regarding Oversight-related blocks | 5 March 2013 | 9 March 2013 | On July 19, 2010, the Arbitration Committee issued a statement noting that blocks based on confidential Checkuser information should not be lifted without consulting a Checkuser who has the ability to review said information. Since that time, this has been incorporated into the blocking policy.
While that statement focused primarily on checkuser-based blocks, the Arbitration Committee reminds administrators that they should not be taking any action when they are unable to make themselves fully aware of the circumstances that led to the block under review. Specifically, an oversighter may note that a block should not be lifted without consulting a member of the oversight team; in these situations, administrators are expected to heed this request and not unilaterally remove the block. |
Motion |
| Amendment regarding Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2 | 23 February 2013 | 8 March 2013 | The section entitled "Standard discretionary sanctions" in the Armenia-Azerbaijan 2 case is replaced with the following:
Previous or existing sanctions, warnings, and enforcement actions are not affected by this motion. |
Motion |
| Motion regarding withdrawn case requests | 6 February 2013 | 8 February 2013 | If the filing party of a request for an arbitration case withdraws said request, the request may be removed after 24 hours if:
In all other circumstances, the request shall remain open until 24 hours after the above circumstances apply, or until the case can be accepted or declined through the procedures outlined in "Opening of proceedings". |
Motion |
| Motion regarding Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Waldorf education | 30 January 2013 | 30 January 2013 | 1) Standard Discretionary sanctions are authorised with immediate effect for all pages relating to Waldorf education, broadly construed. This supersedes the existing Article Probation remedy set down in Waldorf education, remedy 1 and re-affirmed in the Waldorf education review, remedy 2.
This motion does not affect any actions presently in effect that were taken in enforcement of the old article probation remedy. |
Motion |
| Motion regarding Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles | 10 January 2013 | 12 January 2013 |
|
Motion |
| Motion regarding User:Hex | 4 January 2013 | 7 January 2013 | The Arbitration Committee has considered the request for arbitration concerning Hex (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)'s block of O'Dea (talk · contribs). There is no evidence of a significant, recurring problem with Hex's use of his administrator permissions. However, Hex is:
|
Motion |
| Motion regarding Rich Farmbrough | 1 January 2013 | 6 January 2013 | In the Rich Farmbrough case, the revised Finding of Fact 8, enacted on 28 May 2012 is vacated. Nothing in this decision constitutes an endorsement by the Committee of Rich Farmbrough's use of administrative tools to unblock his own accounts. | Motion |
2012
| Topic | Opened | Closed | Outcome | Relevant links |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Motion regarding Jerusalem | 16 December 2012 | 27 December 2012 | The community is asked to hold a discussion that will establish a definitive consensus on what will be included in the article Jerusalem (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), with a specific emphasis on the lead section and how Jerusalem is described within the current, contested geopolitical reality. As with all decisions about content, the policies on reliable sourcing and neutral point of view must be the most important considerations. The editors who choose to participate in this discussion are asked to form an opinion with an open mind, and to explain their decision clearly. Any editor who disrupts this discussion may be banned from the affected pages by any uninvolved administrator, under the discretionary sanctions already authorised in this topic area. The discussion will be closed by three uninvolved, experienced editors, whose decision about the result of the discussion will be binding for three years from the adoption of this motion. | Motion |
| Motion regarding Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Prem Rawat and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Prem Rawat 2 | 15 December 2012 | 20 December 2012 | 1) Standard Discretionary sanctions are authorised with immediate effect for all pages relating to Prem Rawat, broadly construed; this supersedes the existing Article Probation remedy. 2) Any current non-expired Article Probation sanctions are hereby vacated and replaced with standard Discretionary Sanctions in the same terms and durations as the vacated sanctions. If appropriate, these may be appealed at Arbitration Enforcement. 3) The Logs of blocks, bans, and restrictions at the Prem Rawat 2 case page is to be merged into the original Prem Rawat log at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Prem Rawat#Logs of blocks, bans, and restrictions, which is to be used for all future recording of warnings and sanctions. |
Motion |
| Motion regarding Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience and related cases | 11 November 2012 | 15 November 2012 | Remedy 13 of the Pseudoscience Case is modified to read "Standard discretionary sanctions are authorised for all articles relating to pseudoscience and fringe science, broadly interpreted. Any uninvolved administrator may levy restrictions as an arbitration enforcement action on users editing in this topic area, after an initial warning." Existing discretionary sanction remedies that this motion will deprecate may be stricken through and marked as redundant in the usual manner. Enforcement should now be sought under Pseudoscience, rather than under previous decisions concerning sub-topics of pseudoscience, but previous or existing sanctions or enforcement actions are not affected by this motion. |
Motion |
| Motion regarding Iantresman | 25 October 2012 | 4 November 2012 | The topic ban placed against Iantresman (talk · contribs) as a condition of unblocking in [19] is hereby lifted. In its place, Iantresman is subject to a standard 1RR restriction (no more than one revert per article per 24-hour period) on all articles covering fringe science- and physics-related topics, broadly construed, for six months. This restriction may be enforced by escalating blocks up to and including one month in length, and up to and including indefinite length after the fifth such block. When each block is lifted or expires, the six-month period shall reset. Additionally, the original topic ban shall be reinstated if Iantresman is subjected to an indefinite block as a result of this restriction. The Arbitration Committee should be notified of this situation should it occur. | Motion |
| Motion regarding Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility enforcement | 16 October 2012 | 25 October 2012 | Remedy 4 ("Malleus Fatuorum topic banned") of Civility Enforcement is vacated, and replaced with the following:
Malleus Fatuorum (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is topic banned from making edits concerning the RFA process anywhere on the English Wikipedia. As an exception, he may ask questions of the candidates and express his own view on a candidate in a specific RFA (in the support, oppose, or neutral sections), but may not engage in any threaded discussions relating to RFA. An uninvolved admin may remove any comments in violation of this remedy, and may enforce it with blocks if necessary. |
Motion |
| Motion regarding Opening of Proceedings | 12 October 2012 | 21 October 2012 | A request will proceed to arbitration if it meets all of the following criteria:
A proceeding may be opened earlier, waiving provisions 2 and 3 above, if a majority of arbitrators support fast-track opening in their acceptance votes. Once the Committee has accepted a request, a clerk will create the applicable case pages, and give the proceeding a working title. The title is for ease of identification only and may be changed by the Committee at any time. The Committee will designate one or more arbitrators to draft the case, to ensure it progresses, and to act as designated point of contact for any matters arising. |
Motion |
| Motion regarding Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sathya Sai Baba 2 | 20 August 2012 | 29 September 2012 | Remedy 1.1 of the Sathya Sai Baba 2 arbitration case is suspended for three months. During this period, Andries may edit within this topic area, provided that he carefully abides by all applicable policies. After three months, Andries may request that the topic-ban remedy be vacated permanently. | Motion |
| Arbitration motion regarding Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race and intelligence | 9 August 2012 | 24 September 2012 | All users are banned from restoring edits by banned users in the Race and Intelligence topic area. To enforce this, Standard discretionary sanctions have been authorized. | Motion |
| Arbitration motion regarding User:GregJackP | 14 September 2012 | 24 September 2012 | The restriction imposed on GregJackP (talk · contribs) in the Climate change case and the supplementary restriction relating to New Religious movements imposed by the Ban Appeals Subcommittee on 17 March 2012 as a condition of unblocking are hereby lifted. | Motion |
| Arbitration motion regarding Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles | 18 August 2012 | 8 September 2012 | British baronets are no longer under Standard discretionary sanctions | Motion |
| Motion: Mandated external review adopted and Falun Gong 2 amended | 17 August 2012 | 8 September 2012 | Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Mandated external review is officially adopted and Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Falun Gong 2 is updated to reflect that. | Discussion and motions |
| Motion: User:EncycloPetey desysopped | 7 September 2012 | 8 September 2012 | For using his administrator tools while involved (see evidence), the administrator permissions of User:EncycloPetey are revoked. To regain administrator permissions, EncycloPetey must make a successful Request for Adminship (RfA). | Motion |
| Motion regarding Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/India-Pakistan | 7 July 2012 | 29 July 2012 | Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all pages related to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, broadly construed | Motion |
| Motion to remove administrative tools from User:Carnildo | 1 July 2012 | 5 July 2012 | For exercising long term poor judgement in his use of administrative tools, including his recent block of User:Itsmejudith, User:Carnildo's administrative tools are removed. Carnildo may regain the administrative tools in the usual manner via a successful Request for Adminship. | Motion |
| Amendment: Scientology (Lyncs) | 23 May 2012 | 8 June 2012 | The indefinite ban of Lyncs (talk · contribs) from the Scientology topic—that was set down (as "Topic banned from Scientology") as a condition of his successful siteban appeal—is vacated. | Motion |
| Motion on procedural motions | 27 May 2012 | 7 June 2012 | Significant or substantive modifications of the Arbitration Committee's procedures shall be made by way of formal motions on the Committee's public motions page; shall be announced on the Committee's noticeboard and the administrator's noticeboard by the clerks when first proposed; and shall remain open for at least 24 hours after those announcements are made. | Motion |
| Motion on Rich Farmbrough enforcement | 31 May 2012 | 6 June 2012 | Long text of the motion can be found at link on right | Motion |
| Motion regarding standardized enforcement | 28 May 2012 | 4 June 2012 | Long text of the motion can be found at link on right | Motion |
| Motion regarding Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Speed of light | 16 May 2012 | 3 June 2012 | Topic-ban for User:Brews ohare indefinitely from all pages of whatever nature about physics and physics-related mathematics, broadly construed; suspension of ban possibly allowed after one year | Motion |
| Motion regarding decision elements | 28 May 2012 | 2 June 2012 | Long text of the motion can be found at link on right | Motion |
| Motion regarding Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Scientology | 14 May 2012 | 1 June 2012 | The restriction imposed on Prioryman (talk · contribs) by Remedy 17 of the Scientology case ("ChrisO restricted") is hereby lifted. | Motion |
| Motion regarding Scientology sanctions | 30 May 2012 | 1 June 2012 | ;Remedy 4 - Discretionary topic ban
This remedy is superseded with immediate effect by Remedy 4.1. All discretionary topic bans placed under Remedy 4 remain in full force and are subject to the provisions of Remedy 4.1.
Standard discretionary sanctions are authorised with immediate effect for the Scientology topic broadly construed. All warnings and sanctions shall be logged in the appropriate section of the main case page. |
Motion |
| Motion regarding Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change | 30 April 2012 | 30 May 2012 | The restriction imposed on Prioryman (talk · contribs) by Remedy 11.6 of the Climate change case ("ChrisO topic-banned") is hereby lifted. | Motion |
| Motion regarding Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change | 14 May 2012 | 30 May 2012 | The restriction imposed on A Quest For Knowledge (talk · contribs) by Remedy 18 of the Climate change case ("A Quest For Knowledge topic-banned") is hereby lifted. | Motion |
| Arbitration motion regarding Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Scientology | 14 May 2012 | 29 May 2012 | The restriction imposed on Jayen466 (talk · contribs) by Remedy 21.1 of the Scientology case ("Jayen466 topic-banned from Rick Ross articles") is hereby lifted. | Motion |
| Motion to consolidate evidence submission procedures | 27 May 2012 | 28 May 2012 | Submissions of evidence are expected to be succinct and to the point. By default, submissions are limited to about 1000 words and about 100 difference links for named parties, and to about 500 words and about 50 difference links for all other editors. Editors wishing to submit evidence longer than the default limits are expected to obtain the approval of the drafting arbitrator(s) via a request on the /Evidence talk page prior to posting it.
Submissions must be posted on the case /Evidence pages; submission of evidence via sub-pages in userspace is prohibited. Unapproved over-length submissions, and submissions of inappropriate material and/or links, may be removed, refactored, or redacted at the discretion of the clerks and/or the Committee. |
Motion |
| Motion regarding Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Rich Farmbrough | 20 May 2012 | 28 May 2012 | FoF 8 (Unblocking of SmackBot) changed to: Rich Farmbrough has on many occasions, after another administrator has placed a block on his bot account, used his administrative tools to unblock his own bot without first remedying the underlying issue to the blocking admin's satisfaction or otherwise achieving consensus for such unblock (see block logs of SmackBot, Helpful Pixie Bot). | Motion |
| Motion regarding Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race and intelligence/Review | 17 May 2012 | 26 May 2012 | That FoF 2.5 in the Race and intelligence review be amended to read: Mathsci has engaged in borderline personal attacks and frequent battleground conduct. | Motion |
| Motion: Change evidence limits in arbitration cases | 3 April 2012 | 24 May 2012 | Users who are named parties to an arbitration case shall limit their evidence submission to no more than 1000 words in length. All other users submitting evidence to an arbitration case shall limit their evidence submission to no more than 500 words in length. All evidence must be presented on the case's /Evidence subpage. Evidence submissions significantly over the appropriate limit may be refactored by an arbitration clerk at the discretion of the clerks and Committee. | Motion |
| Motion regarding Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Cirt and Jayen466 | 13 April 2012 | 3 May 2012 | Notwithstanding other restrictions on his editing, Cirt is granted an exemption in order to edit the article Dan Savage bibliography, its talk page, a peer review for that article, and a featured list candidacy for the article. This exemption may be withdrawn by The Rambling Man at anytime, or by further motion of the Arbitration Committee. | Motion |
| Motion regarding Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Martinphi-ScienceApologist and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience | 26 February 2012 | 28 March 2012 | The discretionary sanctions provision at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Martinphi-ScienceApologist#Standard discretionary sanctions are moved to a new section underneath Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience#Discretionary sanctions. The annotation at Pseudoscience that the older discretionary sanctions are superseded by Martinphi-ScienceApologist is stricken through, and to it is appended a note that "Those discretionary sanctions were later moved by motion to this case" with a link to this motion. The sanctions at Martinphi-ScienceApologist are stricken through, with a note that they are "moved by motion to Pseudoscience" with a link to the new sanctions and to this motion. The purpose of moving the discretionary sanctions provision is to bring it within a case with an appropriate, clear title. Previous actions and current sanctions with their basis on this discretionary sanctions provision are not affected by this move. |
Motion |
| Motion regarding Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abd-William M. Connolley | 26 February 2012 | 20 March 2012 | The case Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abd-William M. Connolley is renamed to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Cold fusion 2. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Cold fusion is created as a redirect to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Cold fusion, and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Cold fusion 2 is created as a redirect to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Cold fusion 2. For the purposes of procedure, the index of topics with an active discretionary sanctions provision will be updated with the new title, but previous references to the Abd-William M. Connolley decision do not require to be updated. The rename of the Abd-William M. Connolley case to Cold fusion 2 is only for clarity in reference, and does not invalidate any previous action or pending sanctions taken under the provisions of this case. | Motion |
| Motion regarding Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eastern Europe | 9 March 2012 | 20 March 2012 | The case Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren is renamed to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eastern Europe. For the new title of Eastern Europe, WP:ARBEURO and WP:ARBEE are created as shortcuts. For the purposes of procedure, the index of topics with an active discretionary sanctions provision will be updated with the new title, but previous references to the Digwuren decision do not require to be updated. The rename of the Digwuren case to Eastern Europe is only for clarity in reference, and does not invalidate any previous action or pending sanctions taken under the provisions of this case. | Motion |
| Motion regarding Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles | 24 February 2012 | 10 March 2012 | The text in WP:ARBPIA section "Further remedies" is modified from "Clear vandalism, or edits by anonymous IP editors, may be reverted without penalty" to "Clear vandalism of whatever origin may be reverted without restriction. Reverts of edits made by anonymous IP editors that are not vandalism are exempt from 1RR but are subject to the usual rules on edit warring." As identical text is used in an active sanction related to The Troubles case, the same substitution of wording shall be made there. | Motion |
| Motion regarding Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Racepacket | 8 February 2012 | 11 February 2012 | The Arbitration Committee has determined that, as User:Racepacket has on two occasions on 4 February 2012 breached his interaction ban, he is indefinitely site banned from the English Wikipedia. The user may request that the site ban be reconsidered once a minimum of twelve months have elapsed from the date of this motion passing. In the event that Racepacket violates either the site ban, or the interaction ban, the minimum period before an appeal may be submitted will be reset to twelve months from the date of the violation. | Motion |
2011
| Topic | Opened | Closed | Outcome | Relevant links |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Motion regarding Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Climate change | 28 October 2011 | 17 November 2011 | The editing restriction described in remedy 16.1 ("Scjessey's voluntary editing restriction") of the Climate change decision is terminated, effective on the passage of this motion. | Motion |
| Omnibus motion regarding past discretionary sanctions | 18 October 2011 | 27 October 2011 | To simplify enforcement of older sanctions that are, substantively, discretionary sanctions, the committee hereby amends and supersedes the remedies listed below with the following:
where "The topic" is specified in the list of amended remedies below. Any extant sanctions or warnings made according to the older wording found in those decisions (as applicable) remain unaffected.
|
Motion |
| Motion regarding Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Climate change | 29 September 2011 | 26 October 2011 | The topic ban imposed on William M. Connolley (talk · contribs) in the Climate change case is modified, effective immediately. William M. Connolley is permitted to edit within the topic area of Climate change, but is prohibited from editing relating to any living person associated with this topic, interpreted broadly but reasonably. William M. Connolley is reminded to abide by all applicable Wikipedia policies in editing on this topic and that he remains subject either to further action by this Committee or (like all editors in this topic-area) to discretionary sanctions should he fail to do so. | Motion |
| Motion regarding Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Date delinking | 5 August 2011 | 9 September 2011 | Remedies 16 and 18 (as amended) are terminated, effective immediately. Ohconfucius is reminded that this subject remains within the jurisdiction of the Arbitration Committee, and that he is expected to abide by all applicable policies and guidelines, especially those concerning the editing and discussion of policies and guidelines, and the use of alternate accounts. | Motion |
| Motion regarding Arbitrator abstention votes | 9 August 2011 | 19 August 2011 | That in voting sections of proposed decisions as well as of freestanding motions, an additional "Comments" section will be included following the Support, Oppose, and Abstain sections. This section may be used only by arbitrators for comments on the proposal and for discussion of fellow arbitrators' comments. Posting a comment on a proposal does not constitute a vote on the proposal or change the required majority for the proposal. The use of abstention votes as a vehicle for comments, while ultimately within each arbitrator's discretion, is not recommended. Generally, an arbitrator who posts a comment is also expected to vote on the proposal, either at the same time, or at a later time after there has been an opportunity for his or her comments to be addressed. The Arbitration Committee will reevaluate this change of procedures and consider whether any additional changes are warranted in three months. | Motion |
| Motion regarding User:Gilabrand | 18 June 2011 | 8 August 2011 | The arbitration enforcement block placed on Gilabrand (talk · contribs) related to the Palestine-Israel articles case is provisionally suspended as of 25 August or the passage of this motion, whichever is the latter. Gilabrand is reminded that articles in the area of conflict remain the subject of discretionary sanctions, and are currently subject to a 1RR restriction. Gilabrand is further reminded that any future problematic editing following the removal of editing restrictions will viewed dimly. | Motion |
| Motion regarding User:Δ | 8 July 2011 | 14 July 2011 | Pursuant to the provisions of Remedy 5.1, RfAr/Betacommand 2, and mindful of the recent and current disputes surrounding this user in many fora, the committee by motion indefinitely topic-bans Δ (formerly known as Betacommand) from making any edit enforcing the non-free content criteria, broadly construed. User:Δ is also formally reminded of the civility restriction and other terms to which they are still subject as a condition of the provisional suspension of their community ban. | Motion |
| Motion regarding Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern European mailing list and Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Russavia-Biophys | 17 June 2011 | 05 July 2011 | The remedies of the Eastern European mailing list and Russavia-Biophys cases are amended to permit bilateral interactions between User:Russavia and User:Miacek. | Motion |
| Motion regarding Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case Nabla | 20 June 2011 | 27 June 2011 | The following motion has been enacted:
|
Motion |
| Motion regarding Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ed Poor 2 | 11 June 2011 | 24 June 2011 | The scope of the topic ban placed upon Ed Poor (talk · contribs) by Kafziel (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) on 2009-12-10[20] as a result of enforcement of remedy 1.1 of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ed Poor 2 is amended to "any article related to Category:Unification Church, not including associated talk pages", effective immediately. Ed Poor is reminded that further disruption related to this topic may result in the topic ban or other remedies being re-imposed by the Committee. | Motion |
| Motion regarding Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/West Bank - Judea and Samaria | 18 June 2011 | 21 June 2011 | The editing restrictions placed on Nishidani (talk · contribs) in the West Bank - Judea and Samaria case are lifted effective at the passage of this motion. Nishidani is reminded that articles in the area of conflict, which is identical to the area of conflict as defined by the Palestine-Israel articles case, remain the subject of discretionary sanctions; should he edit within this topic area, those discretionary sanctions continue to apply. | motion |
| Motion regarding Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia 2 | 3 June 2011 | 19 June 2011 | Remedy 25.3 of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia 2 ("Future Perfect at Sunrise temporarily desysopped") is lifted, effective immediately. Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) is reminded to abide by the policies guiding administrative acts in areas where one is involved, and to apply particular care to avoid conflict in areas related to Greece and Macedonia. | Motion |
| Motion regarding Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Russavia-Biophys | 22 May 2011 | 19 June 2011 | The topic ban placed upon Biophys (talk · contribs) in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Russavia-Biophys is lifted, effective immediately. Biophys is reminded that further disruption related to this case may result in the topic ban or other remedies being re-imposed by the Committee. | Motion |
| Motion regarding Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jack Merridew ban review motion | 7 May 2011 | 4 June 2011 | The restriction on using multiple/alternate accounts on User:Barong, formerly known as User:Jack Merridew is modified as follows:
User:Barong is directed to edit solely from that account. Should Barong edit from another account or log out to edit in a deliberate attempt to violate this restriction, any uninvolved administrator may block Barong for a reasonable amount of time at their discretion. |
Motion |
| Motion regarding Hyphens and dashes | 5 May 2011 | 16 May 2011 | A temporary injunction and an interim motion were passed. The decision as to whether a full case will be opened will be revisited at the expiry of the timeframes referred to in the injunction and motion texts:
|
Motion |
| Motion regarding Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race and intelligence | 5 April 2011 | 15 April 2011 | That the following replace the terms in Remedy 5.1:
|
Motion |
| Motion regarding User:Rodhullandemu | 26 February 2011 | 26 February 2011 | Rodhullandemu's administrator status is revoked. He may apply for adminship at a future date by the usual means to the community. | Motion |
| Motion regarding Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Date delinking | 29 January 2011 | 8 February 2011 | Remedy 7.1 of the Date delinking case, which as originally written prohibited Lightmouse (talk · contribs) from utilizing any automation on Wikipedia, is amended by adding the words "except for a bot task or group of related tasks authorized by the bot approvals group." Remedy 8, which limited Lightmouse to using a single account, is amended by adding the sentence: "He may also use a separate bot account for any bot task or group of related tasks approved by the bot approvals group." | 2 Motion |
| Motion regarding Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Date delinking | 1 February 2011 | 8 February 2011 | Remedy 18 of the Date delinking case, which limits Ohconfucius (talk · contribs) to using a single account, is amended by adding the sentence: "He may also use a separate bot account for any bot task or tasks approved by the bot approvals group." | Motion |
| Motion regarding Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern European mailing list | 4 January 2011 | 3 February 2011 | The topic ban placed upon Piotrus (talk · contribs) in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eastern European mailing list and subsequent motions is lifted, effective immediately. Piotrus is reminded that further disruption related to this case may result in the topic ban or other remedies being re-imposed by the Committee. | Motion |
| Sanctions appeal by User:Koavf | 30 November 2010 | 10 January 2011 | The restrictions placed upon Koavf (talk · contribs) in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Koavf and in User:Koavf/Community sanction are terminated, effective immediately. Koavf is reminded to edit in the future in full accordance with all Wikipedia policies and guidelines. | Motion |
| Motion regarding Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/West Bank - Judea and Samaria | 14 December 2010 | 6 January 2011 | In view of his compliance with Remedy 11 of the West Bank - Judea and Samaria case, the editing restrictions placed on Jayjg (talk · contribs) in that same case are lifted effective at the passage of this motion. Jayjg is reminded that articles in the area of conflict, which is identical to the area of conflict as defined by the Palestine-Israel articles case, remain the subject of discretionary sanctions; should he edit within this topic area, those discretionary sanctions continue to apply. | Motion |
2010
| Case name | Opened | Closed | Outcome | Relevant links |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Motion regarding a case request about User:YellowMonkey | 30 November 2010 | 24 December 2010 | The Arbitration Committee has considered the request for arbitration (filed 30 November 2010) concerning administrator actions by YellowMonkey, which followed a request for comment on similar issues (certified 23 November). Although YellowMonkey responded to the original issues raised in the request for comment, he has not edited since 24 November 2010 (six days before the arbitration request was filed) and has not yet been afforded the opportunity to address the new issues raised in the request for comment or in this arbitration request. Accordingly, the arbitration request is declined as premature, and those wishing to engage in dispute resolution on this matter (including YellowMonkey) are directed to the request for comment or other appropriate venues. | Motion |
| Motion regarding Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race and intelligence | 29 November 2010 | 17 December 2010 | Remedy 6 ("Mathsci topic-banned by mutual consent") of the Race and Intelligence case is terminated, effective immediately. | Motion |
| Motion regarding Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Speed of light | 17 November 2010 | 18 November 2010 | Brews ohare (talk · contribs) is banned from Wikipedia for a period of one year. | Motion |
| Motion regarding Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern European mailing list | 21 September 2010 | 13 November 2010 | Remedy 3 of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern European mailing list ("Piotrus topic banned") is replaced with the following:
|
Motion |
| Motion regarding Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Date delinking Ohconfucius | 29 October 2010 | 9 November 2010 | Remedy #17 ("Ohconfucius automation") of the Date delinking case is terminated, effective immediately, and Ohconfucius (talk · contribs) is permitted to use automation subject to normal community guidelines. | Motion |
| Motion regarding Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/PHG | 2 October 2010 | 8 November 2010 | The existing topic ban imposed in the PHG arbitration on Per Honor et Gloria (talk · contribs) is extended indefinitely. Accordingly, this user is prohibited from editing articles relating to the Mongol Empire, the Crusades, intersections between Crusader states and the Mongol Empire, all broadly defined. He is permitted to make suggestions on talk pages, provided that he interacts with other editors in a civil fashion. Per Honor et Gloria may appeal this sanction no more than once every six months, starting six months from the passing of this motion. | Motion |
| Motion regarding Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern European mailing list | 7 July 2010 | 5 September 2010 | Remedy 7 of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern European mailing list "Martintg topic banned") is replaced with the following: | Motion |
| Motion regarding Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tothwolf | 5 August 2010 | 4 September 2010 | 1) Tothwolf (talk · contribs · logs), Miami33139 (talk · contribs · logs) and JBsupreme (talk · contribs · logs) are banned from interacting with each other, broadly construed. This includes things like not editing each other's userspace, not becoming involved directly with each other in discussions, and not nominating articles for deletion which another one has started. This does not prohibit commenting in the same discussion without directly interacting or editing the same articles so long as they are not directly in conflict. They may request enforcement of this restriction at the Arbitration Enforcement board or by email to the Arbitration mailing list; they may not request enforcement or action against each other for any other reason or at any other venue. Attempts to game this restriction should be treated as a violation of the restriction.
2) Miami33139 (talk · contribs · logs) is subject to an editing restriction for six months. Should Miami33139 make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, assumptions of bad faith or disruptive to deletion discussions, Miami33139 may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement portion of the case. The six months starts from the day this motion passes. |
Motion |
| Motion regarding Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment#Request to amend prior case: Date delinking | 11 July 2010 | 4 September 2010 | The Date delinking case is supplemented as follows:
|
Motion |
| Motion regarding Brews ohare | 4 August 2010 | 22 August 2010 | Brews ohare (talk · contribs) is topic banned from all physics-related pages, topics and discussions, broadly construed, for twelve months. | Motion |
| Motion regarding User:Δ (previously known as Betacommand) | 25 July 2010 | 31 July 2010 | The Arbitration Committee provisions for the unbanning of Betacommand are amended as follows: Betacommand (talk · contribs), now editing as Δ (talk · contribs), is authorized to operate a single secondary account, Δbot (talk · contribs), only to perform automated tasks directly related to the clerking of sockpuppet investigations only as specified and authorized by the Bot Approvals Group. Any other use of the bot, broadly interpreted, must be specifically authorized in advance by BAG and endorsed by ArbCom. | Motion |
| Motion regarding Eastern European mailing list | 28 June 2010 | 20 July 2010 | Decided on 20 July 2010:
Remedy 20 of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern European mailing list ("Miacek topic banned") is lifted. |
Motion |
| Arbitration motion regarding Speed of light | 16 June 2010 | 7 July 2010 | Decided on 7 July 2010:
Amendment 4 to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Speed of light ("Brews ohare advocacy restrictions") expires concurrently with remedy 4.2 of the same case ("Brews ohare topic banned"), as amended by amendment 3 ("Brews ohare"). |
Motion |
| Motion regarding Eastern European mailing list | 21 June 2010 | 2 July 2010 | Decided on 2 July 2010:
Remedy 17 of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern European mailing list ("Biruitorul topic banned") is lifted. |
Motion |
| Arbitration motion regarding Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tothwolf | 16 May 2010 | 2 July 2010 | Decided on 2 July 2010:
Remedy 2 of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tothwolf ("re JBsupreme (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) ) is changed to read "JBsupreme (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is subject to an editing restriction for six months. Should JBsupreme make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, JBsupreme may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling below." The six months starts from the day this motion passes. |
Motion |
| Arbitration motion regarding Pseudoscience | 15 June 2010 | 2 July 2010 | Decided on 2 July 2010:
The words "such as Time Cube" are struck from principle #15 of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience ("Obvious pseudoscience"). Finding of fact #9 of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience ("Pseudoscience") is amended to read "Wikipedia contains articles on pseudoscientific ideas which, while notable, have little or no following in the scientific community, often being so little regarded that there is no serious criticism of them by scientific critics." |
Motion |
| Motion regarding Eastern European mailing list | 1 June 2010 | 21 June 2010 | Decided on 21 June 2010:
Remedy 10 of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern European mailing list ("Radeksz topic banned") is rescinded. |
Motion |
| Arbitration motion regarding A Nobody | 18 May 2010 | 19 May 2010 | Decided on 19 May 2010:
A Nobody (talk · contribs) is banned indefinitely from Wikipedia. This ban will be lifted and Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/A Nobody opened at such time as A Nobody agrees to participate in that case. |
Motion |
| Arbitration motion regarding Eastern European mailing list | 15 April 2010 | 5 May 2010 | Decided on 5 May 2010:
The current editing restriction affecting Piotrus (talk · contribs) is to be amended to allow Piotrus to raise issues and discuss improvements to articles otherwise under the ban on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Poland talk page. |
motion |
| Request for clarification: Tang Dynasty | 18 February 2010 | 4 May 2010 | Tenmei enters into a mentorship programme for 6 months. Tenmei reminded. | clarification, motion |
| Request for clarification: ban of Offliner (talk · contribs) | 11 April 2010 | 13 April 2010 | Clarification on the reason for the ban requested and provided. | requestposted notice |
| Motion regarding Altenmann | 10 April 2010 | 13 April 2010 |
Decided on 13 April 2010: The administrator permissions of Altenmann (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) are removed for abuse of administrator permissions in violation of an Arbitration Committee remedy [21], abuse of administrator permissions by closing deletion discussions in which he has commented using one or more alternate accounts, and inappropriate use of alternate accounts in violation of Wikipedia:Sock puppetry. Altemann is restricted to one account. He may not change username without the explicit authorization of the Arbitration Committee. Altemann may seek to regain adminship through a request for adminship. |
Motion link |
| Motions regarding Per Honor et Gloria | 16 February 2010 | 30 March 2010 |
Decided on 30 March 2010: 1) PHG's mentorship is renewed
2) PHG's topic ban is renewed
|
Motion link |
| Arbitration motion regarding Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Speed of light | 23 March 2010 | 29 March 2010 |
Decided on 29 March 2010: a)Brews ohare's topic ban is modified to expire in 90 days from the date that this motion passes. The supplementary restrictions of Brews ohare (namely, restrictions from posting on physics related disputes or the Wikipedia/Wikipedia talk namespaces) will also expire 90 days from the date that this motion passes. Brews ohare is instructed that continued violations of his existing restrictions will lead to the 90 day timer being reset in additional to any discretionary enforcement action taken. b)Count Iblis, David Tombe, Likebox, and Hell in a Bucket are indefinitely restricted from advocacy for or commenting on Brews ohare, broadly construed. Should any of these editors violate this restriction, they may be blocked for up to 24 hours by any uninvolved administrator. After three blocks, the maximum block length shall rise to one week. |
Motion link and Arbitration subpage |
| Arbitration motion regarding Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/A Nobody | 14 March 2010 | 19 March 2010 |
Decided on 19 March 2010: This case is accepted, but will not be opened unless and until A Nobody (talk · contribs) returns to Wikipedia. If A Nobody does so under any account or I.P., he/she is required to notify the Committee. |
Motion link and Arbitration subpage |
| Motion regarding Durova and Shoemaker's Holiday | 9 March 2010 | 15 March 2010 |
Decided on 15 March 2010: The Arbitration Committee notes and deplores the acrimonious nature of the dispute between Shoemaker's Holiday and Durova, and the way it has been needlessly prolonged and intensified on- and off-wiki by both parties, and resolves that: a) While noting the provisions in paragraph (b):
b) Both parties may, within reason, comment within the same pages (for example, in the Wikipedia:Featured Pictures topic area and similar) providing their comments do not relate directly or indirectly to the other party. They may also, within reason, revert blatant third-party vandalism to each others' or shared works. c) Should either Shoemaker's Holiday or Durova violate the letter or spirit of these restrictions, they may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator for short periods of up to one week; after the third such violation, the maximum block length shall be one year. All blocks shall be logged below. Appeals of any blocks may be made to the Arbitration Committee. |
Motion link and Arbitration subpage |
| Motions regarding Trusilver and Arbitration Enforcement | 1 March 2010 | 15 March 2010 |
Decided on 15 March 2010: 1) The unblock of User:Brews ohare by User:Trusilver was done without the explicit written consent of the Arbitration Committee, or a full and active community discussion as required. The Arbitration Committee explicitly rejects Trusilver's defense of WP:IAR in this situation. However, since the block has since expired, it will not be reapplied. For misuse of his administrator tools, User:Trusilver's administrator rights are revoked. He may regain them through a new WP:RfA or through a request to the Arbitration Committee. 2) The Arbitration Committee modifies the Restriction on arbitration enforcement activity as follows: Administrators are prohibited from reversing or overturning (explicitly or in substance) any action taken by another administrator pursuant to the terms of an active arbitration remedy, and explicitly noted as being taken to enforce said remedy, except:
Any administrator that overturns an enforcement action outside of these circumstances shall be subject to appropriate sanctions, up to and including desysopping, at the discretion of the Committee. Administrators who consistently make questionable enforcement administrative actions, or whose actions are consistently overturned by community or Arbitration Committee discussions may be asked to cease performing such activities or be formally restricted from taking such activities. |
Motion link |
| Arbitration motion regarding Ireland article names | 17 February 2010 | 5 March 2010 |
Decided on 5 March 2010: 1) The Arbitration Committee notes that the conditions put forward by remedies during the Ireland article names arbitration case were fulfilled to the Committee's satisfaction and that, as a consequence, remedy 4 ("[...] no further page moves discussions related to these articles shall be initiated for a period of 2 years.") is in force until September 18, 2011. 2) While the related matter of how to refer to Ireland/Republic of Ireland in other places (such as articles) is not directly covered by the aforementioned remedies, the Committee takes notes of the existence of a de facto consensus on the matter owing to the stability of the Ireland manual of style and enjoins the community to avoid needlessly rehashing the disputes. |
Motion link |
| Motions regarding Herostratus and Viridae | 2 March 2010 | 5 March 2010 |
Decided on 5 March 2010: 1) Herostratus strongly admonished
2) Viridae admonished
|
Motion link |
| Arbitration motion regarding Eastern European mailing list | 28 January 2010 | 13 February 2010 |
Decided on 13 February 2010: 1) Topic ban narrowed (Radeksz)
2) Topic ban narrowed (Martintg)
|
Motion link |
| Arbitration motion regarding Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abd-William M. Connolley | 11 January 2010 | 2 February 2010 |
Decided on 2 February 2010: 1) Abd and William M. Connolley prohibited from interacting Abd (talk · contribs) and William M. Connolley (talk · contribs) shall not interact with each other, nor comment in any way (directly or indirectly) about each other, on any page in Wikipedia. Should either editor do so, he may be blocked by any administrator for a short time, up to one week. |
Motion link |
| Arbitration motion regarding User:Craigy144 | 20 January 2010 | 30 January 2010 |
Decided on 30 January 2010: Summary motion in lieu of a full case:
|
Motion link |
| Arbitration motion regarding Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern European mailing list | 23 January 2010 | 28 January 2010 |
Decided on 28 January 2010: Malik Shabazz, Xavexgoem, and Durova are authorized to act as proxies for Piotrus by editing, at his direction, the Lech Wałęsa article, its talk page, and any process pages directly related to its nomination for Good Article status. |
Motion link |
| Arbitration motion regarding Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern European mailing list | 22 January 2010 | 28 January 2010 |
Decided on 28 January 2010: 1) Topic ban narrowed
2) Tagging and categorizing of unreferenced Poland-related BLPs allowed
|
Motion link |
| Motion regarding Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Speed of light | 13 January 2010 | 26 January 2010 |
Decided on 19 January 2010: 1) Exception to topic ban Brews ohare (talk · contribs) is permitted to participate in featured article candidacy discussions for "Speed of light" for the sole purpose of discussing the images used in the article. This shall constitute an exception to the topic ban imposed on him (remedy#4.2). 2) Second exception to topic ban Brews ohare (talk · contribs) is permitted to edit images used in the "Speed of light" article to address issues regarding the images that arise in connection with the article's featured article candidacies. This shall constitute an exception to the topic ban imposed on him (remedy#4.2). |
Motion Link |
| Motion regarding BLP deletions | 22 January 2010 | 23 January 2010 |
Decided on 20 January 2010: The Committee has examined this matter. In light of the following considerations:
The Committee has determined that:
The Committee hereby proclaims an amnesty for all editors who may have overstepped the bounds of policy in this matter. Everyone is asked to continue working together to improve and uphold the goals of our project. The Committee recommends, in particular, that a request for comments be opened to centralize discussion on the most efficient way to proceed with the effective enforcement of the policy on biographies of living people. |
Motion Link |
| Arbitration motion regarding Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Falun Gong | 14 January 2010 | 19 January 2010 |
Decided on 19 January 2010: Imposition of discretionary sanctions
|
Motion link |
2009
| Case name | Opened | Closed | Outcome | Relevant links |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| GiacomoReturned | 21 December 2009 | 23 December 2009 |
Decided on 23 December 2009 : This request for a case is declined. The following note is to be written into the record:
|
Motion link |
| Motion to amend User:Jack Merridew's 2008 unban motion | 11 December 2009 | 14 December 2009 |
Decided on 14 December 2009 : Jack Merridew is to be commended for making a clean return from an indefinite ban. On review of the past year, the Arbitration Committee replaces the previous motion with the following conditions:
|
Motion link Mentor discussion link |
| Motions to amend Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/ADHD | 20 October 2009 | 8 November 2009 |
Decided on 8 November 2009 : Scuro (talk · contribs) is topic banned from all pages, topics, and discussions related to attention-deficit hyperactivity, broadly defined, for twelve months. |
Motion link |
| Motion to amend Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Date delinking | 12 October 2009 | 21 October 2009 |
Decided on 21 October 2009 : Wikipedia:Date formatting and linking poll, Wikipedia talk:Full-date unlinking bot#RFC, and Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Full-date unlinking bot indicate that Full-date unlinking bot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) fulfills the requirement for "a Community approved process for the mass delinking" in "1.3 Mass date linking" and the requirement for "[d]ate delinking bots [performing] in a manner approved by the Bot Approvals Group" in "2.1 Date delinking bots". The Committee thanks the participants for their efforts and encourages them to continue with their constructive work and consensus building. |
Motion link |
| Disclosure of known alternate accounts | 1 October 2009 | 11 October 2009 |
Decided on 11 October 2009 : In response to a case request submitted by User:Jehochman the committee decided to reject the case and instead deal with the matter by motion. Motion 1: GlassCobra Motion 2: GlassCobra admonished Motion 3: GlassCobra desysopped Motion 4: Jayron32 admonished Motion 5: Jennavecia admonished Motion 6: Jennavecia's resignation Motion 7: Administrators reminded and encouraged |
Case rejection diff Motion 1 link |
| With respect to User:Law and User:The undertow | 30 September 2009 | 11 October 2009 |
Decided on 11 October 2009 : The Arbitration Committee has been informed that Law (talk · contribs) is an alternate account of The undertow (talk · contribs), and this has been confirmed with the user involved. User:Law has now resigned his administrator tools.[22] At the time that the User:Law account was created, User:The undertow was subject to an Arbitration Committee block. General motion Motion 1 - The undertow is banned 6 months: |
General Motion Link |
| Date delinking | 19 July 2009 | 17 August 2009 |
Decided on 17 August 2009 : Having considered all the requests for amendment and requests for clarification submitted following the decision in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Date delinking, the Arbitration Committee decides as follows:
|
Motion Link |
| Everyking 3 | 22 July 2009 | 15 August 2009 |
Decided on 15 August 2009 : Having considered the request to lift the remaining restriction (remedy X) in the EK3 case, the Arbitration Committee decides that the request is denied, but that the indefinite nature of the restriction is altered so that the restriction will now expire one year after the enactment of this motion. This expiration date of one year will be reset following any future unsuccessful appeals of this restriction |
Motion Link |
| The Rambling Man | 13 August 2009 | 14 August 2009 |
Decided on 14 August 2009: The Arbitration Committee:
|
Motion Link |
| Jimbo Wales - Bishonen | 20 July 2009 | 5 August 2009 |
Decided on 5 August 2009 :
|
Motion Link |
| Aitias | 1 August 2009 | 4 August 2009 |
Decided on 4 August 2009 :
|
Motion Link |
| Geogre | 29 July 2009 | 1 August 2009 |
Decided on 1 August 2009 :
|
Motion Link |
| Geogre | 23 July 2009 | 29 July 2009 |
Decided on 29 July 2009 :
|
Motion Link |
| Everyking desysopping appeal | 17 June 2009 | 18 July 2009 |
Decided on 18 July 2009 :
|
RFAR Link |
| Motion regarding Golan Heights | 01 July 2009 | 16 July 2009 |
Decided on 16 July 2009 :
|
RFAR Link |
| User:Coffee resyop request | 01 July 2009 | 03 July 2009 |
Decided on 03 July 2009 :
|
RFAR Link |
| Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/West Bank - Judea and Samaria | 25 May 2009 | 28 May 2009 |
Decided on 28 May 2009:
|
Link |
| Vintagekits/Kittybrewster/BrownHairedGirl | 5 May 2009 | 13 May 2009 |
Decided on 13 May 2009 :
|
RFAR Link |
| User:EddieSegoura ban appeal | 17 April 2009 | 22 April 2009 |
Decided on 22 April 2009 :
|
RFAR Link AN Link |
| User:Mitchazenia | 05 April 2009 | 08 April 2009 |
Passed on 08 April 09 :
|
Link |
| User:Aitias | 15 March 2009 | 22 March 2009 |
Passed on 18 Mar 09 :
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 :
|
Archive |
| User:Bishzilla | 13 January 2008 | 21 December 2008 | Motion: 2) user:Bishzilla is strongly admonished for her conduct in this matter. She is advised not to block users to force further discussion or action on an issue, nor to increase the pace of an issue, and not to take administrator actions with respect to disputes in which she is involved. Bishzilla is warned that any further such incidents are likely to lead to the suspension or revocation of her administrator privileges. | Motion |
| User:Hemanshu | 31 December 2008 | 03 January 2009 | Motion: 1) As evidenced by Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Hemanshu, the community has lost its confidence in Hemanshu as an admin. His failure to communicate in an effort to address concerns is also disconcerting, as is his being blocked three times in the last few months. Admins need to be held to a high standard and retain the confidence of the community. Therefore Hemanshu is desysopped. NOTE: motion quickly passed 11-1-2 after significant socking found (some votes in the motion were cast before the new evidence emerged). See Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Hemanshu and the checkuser concerns noted in this announcement. | archive diff. |
2008
| Case name | Opened | Closed | Outcome | Relevant links |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| User:Moreschi | 16 December 2008 | 20 December 2008 | Motion: 1.3) Based upon the events of December 16, 2008, user:Moreschi is admonished: (A) Not to reverse blocks imposed by another administrator without the consent of the blocking administrator or on-wiki consensus; (B) Not to reverse actions taken by or on behalf of the Arbitration Committee acting as a committee, and to consult with an arbitrator if he finds the status of an action unclear; and (C) Not to make disparaging comments about other administrators in log entries of his administrator actions. |
motions |
| Peter Damian restrictions | 5 December 2008 | 17 December 2008 | Motion: editing restrictions lifted | archive diff |
| Jack Merridew ban review motion | 16 November 2008 | 9 December 2008 | Motion: indef ban lifted with editing restrictions. | WP:RFAR/Jack Merridew ban review motion |
| Motion on Tobias Conradi case | 8 November 2008 | 29 November 2008 | Motions: one, comprised of various parts—including: principles regarding user space. | WP:RFAR Oldid permalink |
| Motion: re SlimVirgin (also covers Arbitration Enforcement and Giano) |
November 23 2008 | November 27 2008 | Motions:
|
archived subpage |
| Request for clarification on editing arbitration policy | September 28 2008 | October 15 2008 | Question about arbitration policy. No motion, but discussion did appear to move to Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008/Policy Changes, and then subsequently to Wikipedia:Arbitration policy proposed updating. | archive diff |
| Request for clarification on topic bans | September 23 2008 | September 27 2008 | Question of best place for a topic ban discussion resolved by making a redirect. | archive diff |
| Request for arbitration on Unapproved admin bots | September 17 2008 | September 25 2008 | RFAR was declined but a motion resulted that recapped issues in the case, encouraged the community to continue discussing the issue and admonished User:Prodego for his block of User:Misza13. Due to its length, the full closed motion is on this talk page. | archive diff |
| Motion in E104421-Tajik | 12 September 2008 | 13 September 2008 | 1) Remedy 1 in E104421-Tajik is 2) Tajik (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is placed on an editing restriction. Tajik is limited to one revert per page per week (excepting obvious vandalism), and is required to discuss any content reversions on the page's talk page. Should he exceed this limit or fail to discuss a content reversion, he may be briefly blocked, up to a month in the event of repeated violations. All blocks are to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/E104421-Tajik#Log of blocks, bans, and restrictions. |
diff |
| Request for clarification on RFA options for User:Coffee and User:PeterSymonds | August 31 2008 | September 1 2008 | motion passed 7-0, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
|
archive diff |
| Steve Crossin, Chet B Long, PeterSymonds, and inappropriate account sharing | August 23 2008 | August 30 2008 | motion rejected, Chet and Peter desyssoped, Steve taking a break | archive diff |
| User:Can't sleep, clown will eat me | July 18 2008 | July 18 2008 | Desysop (until Can't sleep contacts arbcom) | perm rfar link, meta request fulfilled |
2007
| Case name | Opened | Closed | Outcome | Relevant links |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lyndon LaRouche | 17 October 2007 | 27 October 2007 | The findings of fact of the original decision Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche/Proposed decision, closed in September 2004, referred to two problematic behaviours:
The Arbitration Committee affirms that editor behaviour amounting to such patterns is not accepted on Wikipedia. Administrators should draw the attention of editors to these standing principles, which should be known by any editor engaging closely in LaRouche-related articles. After due warning, explanation, and reference to the basic unacceptability of POV pushing on Wikipedia, proportionate blocks may be applied by administrators. Cases of difficulty may be referred directly to the Committee for clarification. It is also pointed out that the principles of Wikipedia:Biographies of living people, formulated since that first case, must be applied strictly to all biographical material appearing in articles relating to the LaRouche movement. |
Permalink to motion |
| Carl Hewitt | 13 October 2007 | 16 October 2007 |
|
Permalink to motion |
| Instantnood 3 | 30 July 2007 | 6 September 2007 | I move that the restrictions, now over a year old, from the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Instantnood 3 case on editor Huaiwei be lifted. While Huaiwei appears to have been involved in some edit wars and has received a number of 3RR blocks, I do not believe that the probation and limits on participation remain relevant at this point. | Permalink to motion |
| Zeq-Zero0000 | 8 June 2007 | 10 June 2007 | Any future use of administrative tools by Zero0000 in relation to someone with whom he is in a dispute, will result in immediate desyopping once it is brought to the attention of ArbCom. This specifically includes, but is not limited to, administrative action against or related to Zeq. | Permalink to motion |
| Waldorf education | 2 June 2007 | 6 June 2007 | Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Waldorf_education#Pete_K_banned applies to user pages with respect to content which relates to Waldorf education, PLANS, Rudolf Steiner, orAnthroposophy. Based on [24], [25], [26], and [27]. | Permalink to motion |
| Tony Sidaway | 28 April 2007 | 7 May 2007 | Crotalus horridus' probation shall terminate six months from the date of the acceptance this motion or the date of the last enforcement action, if any, under his probation, whichever is later. | Permalink to motion |
| Highways | 31 March 2007 | 3 April 2007 | User:JohnnyBGood has requested the same relief from probation as granted to User:Rschen7754 and User:PHenry. I am inclined to grant it. I am not inclined to extend such relief to User:SPUI, based on repeated violations of the probation, but I also wish to propose that restrictions on SPUI terminate twelve months after his last probation violation. | Permalink to motion |
| Highways | 16 March 2007 | 26 March 2007 | Rschen7754 (talk · contribs) and PHenry (talk · contribs) have appealed their continued probation in the Highways case. I believe that their continued probation is not necessary and move to end it forthwith. | Permalink to motion |
2006
| Case name | Opened | Closed | Outcome | Relevant links |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ulritz | 17 November 2006 | 18 November 2006 | The anonymous editor who edits from the 194.9.5.0/24 range and was also a part to Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Ulritz shall be subject to the same restrictions as Ulritz and Rex Germanus for edit warring at involved articles. See #Ulritz_placed_on_Probation and #Ulritz_placed_on_revert parole for the applicable restrictions. | Permalink to motion |
| Irishpunktom | 20 September 2006 | 22 September 2006 | The article ban (remedy 1) for Dbiv (talk · contribs) and Irishpunktom (talk · contribs) from Peter Tatchell is lifted, and replaced with Probation for Dbiv also. Any administrator, in the exercise of their judgement for reasonable cause, may ban Dbiv from any page which he disrupts by inappropriate editing. He must be notified on his talk page of any bans, and a note must also placed on WP:AN/I. Violations of these bans or paroles imposed shall be enforced by appropriate blocks, up to a month in the event of repeat violations. All bans are to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Irishpunktom#Log of blocks and bans. | Irishpunktom: Dbiv |
| Eternal Equinox | 10 September 2006 | 17 September 2006 | Eternal Equinox continues to edit anonymously, both disrupting articles and continuing to violate bans received under probation for the disruption. Eternal Equinox is hereby limited to one publicly known account, preferably Eternal Equinox. All edits by Eternal Equinox under another account or an IP address shall be treated as edits by a banned user. | Permalink to motion |
| Freestylefrappe | 10 September 2006 | 12 September 2006 | Since being desysopped in his arbitration case, Freestylefrappe has had a number of different accounts, including Tchadienne (talk · contribs), KI (talk · contribs), Republitarian (talk · contribs), and Ya ya ya ya ya ya (talk · contribs), some of which have engaged in disruptive editing. I propose that his editing be limited to one account so that admins will have a consistent history of his activities. | Permalink to motion |
| Aucaman | 28 August 2006 | 11 September 2006 | Since being placed on Probation for edit warring in the Aucaman case in May, Khoikhoi has demonstrated that the restriction is no longer necessary or warranted. He has been very prolific, invaluable in tracking down banned users Bonaparte and -Inanna-, contributed to at least one recent featured article. Most importantly, I see no signs of the edit warring that caused him to be included in the ruling.
I propose that, in view of good behavior, the probation placed on Khoikhoi (talk · contribs) be lifted so that he is no longer under any Arbitration Committee restrictions. |
Permalink to motion |
| Zeq | 20 July 2006 | 18 August 2006 | Motion to ban Zeq for a week for creating an attack article regarding User:Homeontherange (article has been deleted) diff will be available to Arbitration Committee members. | Permalink to motion |
| Everyking | 14 July 2006 | 27 July 2006 |
|
Permalink to motion |
| Guanaco, MarkSweep, et al | 28 April 2006 | 9 June 2006 |
Since the conclusion of the Arbitration case, StrangerInParadise (talk · contribs) has continued to assume bad faith and make disruptive edits with the StrangerInParadise account while maintaining a separate, older, user account. Thus, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Guanaco, MarkSweep, et al is modified to include the following remedy:
StrangerInParadise is restricted to one user account. Any sockpuppet accounts will be blocked indefinitely and the main account blocked for up to 48 hours if this is violated. |
Permalink to motion |
| Lyndon LaRouche 2 | 30 April 2006 | 5 May 2006 | Despite involvement in 3 arbitrations, two of which found and prohibited continued advocacy, Herschelkrustofsky (talk · contribs) has continued to violate his arbitration remedies, continued advocacy, continued edit warring, and continued incivility and assmptions of bad faith (see for example [28]).
The background for the most recent ban is at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive91#HK_enforcement. Accordingly, I propose that Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche 2 be modified to include the following remedy:
For violations of his parole, and continued disruption by advocacy, edit warring, incivility, and assumptions of bad faith, Herschelkrustofsky (talk · contribs) is banned from editing Wikipedia for one year. |
Permalink to motion |
| Rajput | 17 April 2006 | 27 April 2006 | Since his arbitration case, DPSingh (talk · contribs) has violated his ruling and been blocked, and then created a whole host of sockpuppets to violate his article ban, and just be generally disruptive and uncivil. See most recent socks at Wikipedia:Requests_for_CheckUser#Rajput_case. I recommend a general ban.
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rajput is modified to include the following remedy:
For continued violation of his article ban for edit warring and incivility using sockpuppets, DPSingh is banned from editing Wikipedia for one year. |
Permalink to motion |
| Xed 2 | 21 April 2006 | 25 April 2006 | Since his second Arbitration case, the personal attack probation against Xed (talk · contribs) imposed in the first case has lapsed, and Xed's behaviour has subsequently deteriorated. This, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Xed 2 is modified to include the following remedy:
For continued personal attacks, Xed is placed indefinitely on personal attack parole. If, in the judgement of any sysop, Xed has breached this ruling, he may be briefly blocked should he make personal attacks, for up to a month in the case of repeat offenses. |
Permalink to motion |
| Lightbringer | 2 April 2006 | 10 April 2006 | Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lightbringer is modified to include the following remedy:
In light of his continued and flagrant violation of his restrictions using sockpuppets, as documented by Category:Wikipedia:Suspected sockpuppets of Lightbringer and Wikipedia:Long term abuse/Lightbringer, Lightbringer is banned from Wikipedia for one year.
|
Permalink to motion |
| Instantnood 2 | 8 January 2006 | 28 January 2006 | Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Instantnood_2#Instantnood_placed_on_probation is modified to:
Instantnood (talk · contribs) is placed on Wikipedia:Probation for one year. This means that any administrator, in the exercise of judgement for reasonable cause, documented in a section of this decision, may ban them from any article or talk page which they disrupt by inappropriate editing. Instantnood must be notified on their talk page of any bans and a note must also placed on WP:AN/I. |
Permalink to motions |
| Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Instantnood_2#Huaiwei_placed_on_probation is modified to:
Huaiwei (talk · contribs) is placed on Wikipedia:Probation for one year. This means that any administrator, in the exercise of judgement for reasonable cause, documented in a section of this decision, may ban them from any article or talk page which they disrupt by inappropriate editing. Huaiwei must be notified on their talk page of any bans and a note must also placed on WP:AN/I. | ||||
| Ciz | 23 December 2005 | 27 January 2006 | Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Ciz#Prevention_from_editing_Zoophilia is modified to:
|
Permalink to motions |
Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Ciz#Attempts_to_edit_Zoophilia is modified to:
| ||||
| Pigsonthewing | 30 December 2005 | 26 January 2006 | Upon review of Pigsonthewing's article edits for the month of December, I find nothing that does not appear to be edit warring. (Updated: It has been pointed out to me that he has some useful edits in the early part of December, but only one of any quality since the case against him closed on the 10th, and nothing but edit warring since the 12th. Kelly Martin (talk) 18:54, 30 December 2005 (UTC)) His probation does not appear to be going well. In general his contributions elsewhere are divisive, bordering on wikistalking of Karmafist and possibly other editors, and his continued presence on Wikipedia is clearly creating more heat than light. Accordingly, I move that Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pigsonthewing be modified include the following remedy:
|
Permalink to motion |
2005
| Case name | Opened | Closed | Outcome | Relevant links |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Everyking 3 | 28 December 2005 | 29 December 2005 | Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Everyking 3 is reopened to modified it to include the following additional remedy:
|
Permalink to motion |
| Regarding The Bogdanov Affair | 18 December 2005 | 23 December 2005 | Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Regarding_The_Bogdanov_Affair#Ban_on_editing_Bogdanov_Affair is extended to include the talk page of the article. | Permalink to motion |
| Zen-master | 7 December 2005 | 18 December 2005 | Zen-master's probation is extended to all articles.
|
Permalink to motion |
This is an archive of requests for an arbitration case declined by the Arbitration Committee or withdrawn by the initiating user.
Disputes being declined by the committee does not necessarily reflect the merits of a case request or the article(s) or user(s) involved. A case may be rejected because the dispute has been resolved through other means, because other dispute resolution has not yet been pursued, because the issues have become moot, or for any other reason that led the arbitrators to conclude they should not take the case. The arbitrators' comments in voting not to hear a case often briefly indicate their reasons and can be checked by opening the declined case request and checking the Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter sections, which come near the end and after all statements by non-arbitrators.
The term "rejected" is sometimes used by arbitrators instead of "declined." In this context, the terms are synonymous. Case requests accepted by the committee are listed instead at the accepted cases index.
2025
April to June
- Infobox formatting dispute Removed as premature 19 April 2025 diff
January to March
- Sinfest article Removed as premature 28 January 2025 diff
- IBAN Request Removed as premature after cross-posted to Arbitration Enforcement 21 January 2025 diff
2024
October to December
- Sabotage of Lindy Li's page Removed as premature 26 December 2024 diff
- Users reverting changes made for accuracy despite repeat requests and backed by verifiable evidences Removed as premature 22 December 2024 diff
- Blocking the entry of information Removed as premature 9 December 2024 diff
- Change title to "genocide of Ukrainians in the Russo-Ukrainian War" and delete "allegations of." Removed as malformed 7 December 2024 diff
- Dispute over the lead of the Zionism article Declined as premature 30 November 2024 diff
- Covert canvassing and proxying in the Israel-Arab conflict topic area Declined 20 November 2024 diff
- User Carthradge vandalising and edit warring Removed as violating an extended-confirmed restriction diff
- Mistreated and Inhumanity blocking to Royiswariii Declined as premature 8 November 2024 diff
- Marine 69-71 Motion passed in lieu of full case 7 November 2024 diff
- Wikipediocracy-related conduct Declined 7 November 2024 diff
- Ole Sæter edits relating to Israel-Palestine Withdrawn 3 November 2024 diff
July to September
- Personal Attacks and false reports Declined as premature 18 September 2024 diff
- Unjustified removal of my edits on the Stefan Molyneux page Declined as premature 10 August 2024 diff
- Repeated accusations and harassment Declined as premature 4 August 2024 diff
- Aspersions cast by Thryduulf Declined 22 July 2024 diff
- An admin advising another user to deliberately introduce errors Declined 5 July 2024 diff
April to June
- Rio Grande 223 Declined 24 June 2024 diff
- Anachronist Declined 24 June 2024 diff
- Persistent WP:IDONTLIKEIT behavior in WP:NCROY discussions Declined 19 May 2024 diff
- Use of single and primary sources in Sri Lankan Civil War articles Removed as invalid 1 May 2024 diff
- Designating Sri Lanka as a contentious topic Motion passed in lieu of full case diff
- Off-wiki doxxing Declined 5 April 2024 diff
- Consensus process, censorship, administrators' warnings and blocks in dispute, and responses to appeals Declined 1 April 2024 diff
January to March
- Rio Grande 223 Dismissed as malformed 20 March 2024 diff
- Promoting Iranian government POV in Wikipedia? Dismissed as invalid 19 March 2024 diff
- Repeated Vandalism across election wikipedia pages Declined as premature 29 February 2024 diff
- Neutrality of editors Declined as premature / filer in violation of WP:GS/RUSUKR 3 January 2024 diff
- Removal of content from "Court cases and shield laws" section of Nick McKenzie Declined as premature 15 January 2024 diff
2023
October to December
- Both articles Afro Tech + Afro - prolonged edit disputes & Constant block motions against me Removed as premature 18 November 2023 diff
- Ukrainian language Declined 17 November 2023 diff
- Lourdes Declined 2 November 2023 diff
July to September
- Australian Indigenous Voice referendum Removed as premature 19 September 2023 diff
- CorbieVreccan, Mark_Ironie, and Tamzin Motion passed in lieu of full case 17 September 2023 diff
- Admin makes it explicit: he wants to turn Wikipedia into an Islamic encyclopedia Removed as out of scope 15 September 2023 diff
- John Boyd (Military Strategist) NPOV 2023 Removed as premature 8 September 2023
- Biased interpretation of the 3RR Declined 2 September 2023
- Witchcraft and related topics Declined 18 August 2023 diff
- Sandstein Declined 22 July 2023 diff
April to June
- Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam Removed as premature 10 June 2023 diff
- Sri Lanka Armed Forces Removed as premature 5 June 2023 diff
- Threatened to be blocked [...] Removed as premature 30 May 2023 diff
- Page deletion by Seraphimblade Removed as premature 23 April 2023 diff
- Paid editing recruitment allegation Declined 14 April 2023 diff
- Naming conventions of constituencies Declined 10 April 2023 diff
- Dbachmann Resolved by motion 09 April 2023 diff
January to March
- Zzuuzz blocked Shim119's IP address Removed as premature 21 March 2023 diff
- FleurDeOdile Off-wiki Canvassing & Cross-wiki Edit Warring Declined 20 March 2023 diff
- BD2412's involved action Withdrawn 9 March 2023 diff
- WikiMedia Foundation involvement in software deployment on the English Wikipedia Declined 23 February 2023 diff
- Bejrisch case request Declined 12 February 2022 diff
- ARBPIA disruptive behavior by Dan Palraz Deferred to AE 8 February 2023 diff
- Notability for porn actors Removed as premature 30 January 2023 diff
2022
October to December
- Removing of a company information from Flying car page Removed as premature 13 November 2022 diff
- Admin Tamzin's judgement Declined 9 November 2022 diff
- Webpage on human rights in Norway in Norwegian gets deleted by Norwegian admin. Removed as out of scope 20 October 2022 diff
- Athaenara Resolved by motion 16 October 2022 diff
- Discord ban of tttmaker Removed as out of scope 10 October 2022 diff
- Speedy Deletion of Draft: Lovable Curves Removed as premature 10 October 2022 diff
July to September
- Amhara Genocide Removed as premature 18 August 2022 diff
- Conduct on Portal:Current Events Declined 18 August 2022 diff
April to June
- Issues with the Operation of ANI Declined 27 June 2022 diff
- User:折毛's_cross-wiki_hoaxes Removed as premature 17 June 2022 diff
- Celestina007 Declined 19 May 2022 diff
- Dispute on Portal:Iceland Declined 19 May 2022 diff
January to March
- Timwi Motion passed in lieu of full case 11 February 2022 diff
- Nableezy Removed as premature 27 January 2022 diff
- Inappropriate censorship of contribution to page entitled "God" Removed as premature 24 January 2022 diff
- Legitimacy about the imposition of never approved rules Declined 11 January 2022 diff
- Warsaw concentration camp Motions passed and case request declined 10 January 2022 diff
2021
October to December
- LGBT parenting Removed as premature, filer blocked 11 December 2021 diff
- One sided fight with Huldra Removed as premature 1 December 2021 diff
- Conduct in Articles for Deletion Declined 6 November 2021 diff
- CGI Imagery presented as location photography Removed as premature 4 October 2021 diff
July to September
- User Shibbolethink impersonating an admin in order to bully user with different opinion and in order to delete parts of articles they dont like Removed as premature 12 September 2021 diff
- BrownHairedGirl Declined 18 August 2021 diff
- Hijiri88 Declined 11 August 2021 diff
- Harassment and Intimidation Removed as premature 08 August 2021 diff
- Hip Hop Movement draft Removed as premature 08 August 2021 diff
- Assassination of Meir Kahane Removed as premature 12 July 2021 diff
- Request by Aussie Article Writer Withdrawn 11 July 2021 diff
April to June
- Systematic disruptive editing, provocations of edit warring in Wikipedia by user Лобачев Владимир Declined 29 June 2021 diff
- Pahonia Declined 10 June 2021 diff
- Political Use of Wikipedia by Radical Ecologists Removed as premature 9 June 2021 diff
- Whether International Ice Hockey Federation should have a section on controversy detailing recent events regarding Belarus and tournament hosting 2 June 2021 diff
- Dispute involving university degree attained by Meghan Markle Declined as premature 1 June 2021 diff
- Rollback by Wiktionary Administrator Surjection Dismissed 26 May 2021 diff
- Polisario Front Human Rights Violations Removed as filer was a sockpuppet and as premature 11 May 2021 diff
- China-Taiwan articles Declined 14 April 2021 diff
January to March
- BunnyyHop and Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union Removed as premature 17 February 2021 diff
- Editing List of wars and anthropogenic disasters by death toll Removed as premature 9 February 2021 diff
- Kiss from the Past disputed article notability Removed as premature 24 January 2021 diff
- Ongoing issues with PragerU page Declined 9 January 2021 diff
- Rwandan genocide Declined 5 January 2021 diff
2020
October to December
- User repeatedly causing issues and not engaging in talk to resolve dispute Removed 25 December 2020 diff
- Wow! signal Declined 6 December 2020 diff
- Our Lady of Medjugorje Declined 4 December 2020 diff
- Elements Declined 27 November 2020 diff
- Magali Roques deletion Removed as premature 16 November 2020 diff
- Arameans Removed as premature 12 November 2020 diff
- Being stalked by User:Koncorde Removed 27 October 2020 diff
- User:HersiliaAramazd Removed 23 October 2020 diff
- Formatting of Year in Country pages Declined 4 October 2020 diff
July to September
- JzG Declined 29 September 2020 diff
- Jenhawk777 and Nightenbelle Withdrawn by filing party 22 August 2020 diff
- Seeking Insulation from Administrative ‘Attack’ for Contribution Declined 17 August 2020 diff
- Discussion to prevent overzealous editing was derailed Removed as premature 13 July 2020 diff
- SashiRolls Declined 9 July 2020 diff
- Gaslighting and DAILYMAIL Declined 1 July 2020 diff
April to June
- JzG Declined 15 June 2020 diff
- Whether "Oral Sex" should be in the lead of Becky (slang) Removed as premature 28 May 2020 diff
- Carmaker1 Declined 2 May 2020 diff
- Review of actions of User:Chris.sherlock. Declined 23 April 2020 diff
- Mottainai Declined 23 April 2020 diff
- Editors to "Greg Lindberg" have been subjective and baseless in many of their postings Removed 2 April 2020 diff
January to March
- Request for WP:IBAN as a measure against hounding and personal attacks Declined 10 March 2020 diff
- Richard Grenell text Withdrawn by filing party 21 February 2020 diff
2019
October to December
- Áñez political position anti-indigenous source debate Removed as premature 24 November 2019 diff
- Proclamation of Indonesian Independence Removed as premature 20 Nov 2019 diff
- Drmies salting Withdrawn by filing party 10 November 2019 diff
July to September
- Eric Corbett Declined by motion 2 September 2019 diff
- James Martin (priest, born 1960) Declined 17 August 2019 diff
- Beyond My Ken Declined 19 July 2019 diff
- Disputed Signpost article Declined 13 July, 2019 diff
- WMF and Fram Declined 6 July 2019 diff
- User:TonyBallioni's block of User:Starship.paint and User:Geni's unblock Declined 5 July 2019 diff
April to June
- Fram Declined 30 June 2019 diff
- List of music considered the worst Declined 28 May 2019 diff
- Future Perfect at Sunrise behavior Declined 02 May 2019 diff
- SashiRolls Declined 02 May 2019 diff
- RexxS RfA bureaucrat chat Declined 13 April 2019 diff
- Hexagonal Water Dismissed 10 April 2019 diff
- Portal issues Declined 04 April 2019 diff
January to March
- Prolonged reverts on article Hrvoje Vukčić Hrvatinić Removed as premature 26 March 2019 diff
- Transgender-related POV editing Declined 19 March 2019 diff
- Where is Bootle? Removed as premature 18 March 2019 diff
- Mainstream science and possible pro-corporate POV editing Declined 17 March 2019 diff
- Conduct dispute involving gendered pronouns Declined 8 March 2019 diff
- Request to block interactions between Not My Ken and Caedmon Scop Declined as obviously premature 3 March 2019 diff
- CONSTANT HARASSMENT BY Future Perfect at Sunrise Declined 26 February 2019 diff
- Personal Attack with disgracing insults by Future Perfect at Sunrise Declined 26 February 2019 diff
- Fæ Declined 12 February 2019 diff
- Inclusion of "otherwise notable" earthquakes on List of earthquakes in xxxx year Withdrawn 20 January 2019 diff
- Bishonen Declined 15 January 2019 diff
- Digital media use and mental health Withdrawn by filing party 14 January 2019 diff
- Sockpuppet allegations Declined 05 January 2019 diff
2018
October to December
- The Exodus Declined 21 December 2018 diff
- Arbitrator BU Rob13 at WP:ARCA Declined 8 December 2018 diff
- The Students Union at UWE Controversies section Declined 7 December 2018 diff
- Jytdog Declined in lieu of motion 5 December 2018 diff
- 2017 ArbCom and the GdB unban Declined 2 December 2018 diff
- Camp Fire Declined 19 November 2018 diff
- Louis Farrakhan Declined 12 November 2018 diff
- Swarm Declined 11 November 2018 diff
- The Daily Caller Declined 7 November 2018 diff
- User:JzG/Politics Declined 19 October 2018 diff
- Politicaly unneutral administrators in ja-wiki Declined 16 October 2018 diff
July to September
- Admin Drmies conduct Declined 24 September 2018 diff
- Block and abuse of admin rights on EO Wiktionary by Pablo Escobar and no local appeal procedure available Declined 23 September 2018 diff
- Creationism and NPOV Declined 15 September 2018 diff
- 'Incel' Article Ownership and Neutrality Dispute Declined 9 September 2018 diff
- Muse Edits Reversal Declined 6 September 2018 diff
April to June
- My very best wishes and GPRamirez5-Breaches of civility and 1RR Declined 1 June 2018 diff
- McGill University Declined 26 May 2018 diff
- Questionable BLP reverts by blocked editors withdrawn by filing party 4 May 2018 diff
- I am not being allowed to contribute from genuine sources Declined as obviously premature 1 May 2018 diff
- Misuse of Administrator Tools Motion adopted in lieu of full case 18 April 2018 diff
- Siege of Tobruk: usage of the terms "British" and "United Kingdom" Declined 10 April 2018 diff
- Misuse of Administrator Tools 2 Declined 9 April 2018 diff
January to March
- COI editing and TOU violations Declined 31 March 2018 diff
- New Jersey-related AfDs Declined 24 March 2018 diff
- Does Russia have time travel technology? Declined 21 March 2018 diff
- Copyvio and retaliation Declined 7 March 2018 diff
- Expeditionary Sea Base (ESB) vessels Declined 23 January 2018 diff
- Fram Declined 9 February 2018 diff
- Folco Quilici Declined 26 February 2018 diff
- Admin abuse Declined 14 March 2018 diff
2017
October to December
- Michael Moates White House press corps Declined 22 December 2017 diff
- List of current NHL captains and alternate captains Dispute Declined 6 December 2017 diff
- Zoyetu and August 2017 BLP topic ban Declined 19 October 2017 diff
- List of unofficial users of Iranian rial Declined 1 November 2017 Special:diff/808185412
- Joefromrandb Declined 8 November 2017 diff
- Conduct at Reference Desks Declined 8 November 2017 diff
- Nathan B. Forrest Declined 11 November 2017 Special:Diff/809788228
- List of European islands by population - Island of Ireland countries editing dispute Declined 17 November 2017 diff
- Crosswiki issues Declined by motion 27 November 2017 diff
July to September
- topic-banning Supermann from all pages related to film for one year declined 22 August 2017 diff
- Comma usage dispute Declined 12 July 2017 diff
- Legacypac Declined 6 July 2017 diff
- Smartmatic Page Reverts Declined 5 July 2017 diff
- Agressive protection of Morgallens page. Refuses to accept verified sourced. Guarding Declined 21 September 2017 diff
April to June
- Cross-Strait conflict: PRC and ROC Declined 25 June 2017 diff
- User sabotaging efforts to improve Yitzchak Ginsburgh Declined 25 June 2017 diff
- Malicious Editing Declined 25 June 2017 diff
- Zionist Occupation Government move request and content disputes Withdrawn 2 June 2017 diff
- Request to de-sysop Jondel Declined 4 May 2017 diff
- Magioladitis user talk page deletions Declined 10 April 2017 diff
January to March
- United States presidential election, 2020 Declined 25 March 2017 diff
- Safavid Declined 7 February 2017 diff
- Catflap08 and Hijiri88 2 Declined 2 February 2017 diff
- Amhara people Declined 20 January 2017 diff
- BrownHairedGirl and categories Declined 16 January 2017 diff
2016
October to December
- Regarding removal of phrase "regional power" (with 2 references) from Pakistan article Declined 18 December 2016 diff
- Clarification needed as to why I have been indefinitely topic banned from religion and Pakistan-India topics Declined 18 December 2016 diff
- Maxine Grimm Declined 22 November 2016 diff
- Fram Declined 27 October 2016 diff
- Dinesh D'Souza Declined 20 October 2016 diff
- In ictu oculi Declined and withdrawn 7 October 2016 diff
- Editor dispute over the "Brescia Medallion" image in the WP article on "Ancient Rome" Declined 4 October 2016 diff
July to September
- Ban appeal Declined 19 August 2016 diff
- Power Rangers Articles Declined 4 July 2016 diff
- Scientology R2-45: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence Declined 4 July 2016 diff
- Doc James Declined 3 July 2016 diff
April to June
- Sorcha Faal article protection Declined 24 May 2016 diff
- Black Supremacy case Withdrawn 13 May 2016 diff
- Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lagoo sab Withdrawn 13 May 2016 diff
- Brahmaguptas Multan connection Declined 2 May 2016 diff
- Improper Administration by Vanjagenije Declined 18 April 2016 diff
- Dispute between User:HENDAWG229, User:Fruitloop11, User:76.107.252.227 Declined 7 April 2016 diff
- Infobox for Jamalul Kiram III, Ismael Kiram II, Muedzul Lail Tan Kiram Declined 5 April 2016 diff
January to March
- Conflict over number of jews in Spain on Jewish population by country withdrawn 28 March 2016 diff
- European Graduate School Article Content declined 15 March 2016 diff
- Indo-Pakastani War of 1971. Declined 7 March 2016 diff
- Converts to Hinduism. Declined 7 March 2016 diff
- Long-term pattern of tag-teaming between Volunteer Marek and My very best wishes. Declined 7 March 2016diff
- Longstanding POV and behaviour dispute at veganism Declined 4 March 2016 diff
- Great Wyrley High School - notable former pupils Withdrawn 2 March 2016 diff
- Reddogsix: Declined 24 February 2016 diff
- Muhammad: Withdrawn 3 February 2016 diff
- Future Perfect at Sunrise: Motion passed in lieu of full case 26 January 2016 diff
- Structure and content of Count key data and related articles Declined (as content dispute) diff
- I Dream Of Jeannie TV Series Declined (as frivolous) 13 January 2016 diff
2015
October to December
- Tucks Post Card Edits Declined 2015-12-08 diff
- Topic regarding electronic cigarettes Withdrawn 2015-11-22 diff
- Topics Regarding Allie X Declined 2015-11-22 diff
- Military Occupation of Gaza Declined 2015-11-11 diff
- Hotel Paid Edits w/ Disclosure Withdrawn 2015-10-19 diff
- Spinningspark Declined 2015-10-16 diff
- Mark Marathon Declined 2015-10-10 diff
July to September
- Lady.de.Clare and Necrothesp Declined 2015-09-29 diff
- Request for Arbitration Committee judgement Declined 2015-09-29 diff
- Koch Industries Reputation Management Withdrawn 2015-09-11 diff
- Cjhanley and No Gun Ri Article Declined 2015-08-18 diff
- Wikipedia editor threatened to ban me, over stating that an article was libelous Withdrawn (and removed as frivolous) 2015-08-10 diff
- Mark Bernstein Declined 2015-07-18 diff
- Non-neutral editing of Masculism Page Declined 2015-07-17 diff
- Abuse of COIN Declined 2015-07-15 diff
- Zeitgeist (film series) Declined 2015-07-12 diff
- Talk Page Etiquette Declined 2015-07-05 diff
April to June
- Greco-Turk Middle East Dispute Declined 2015-06-13 diff
- A Letter Concerning Toleration Declined 2015-05-27 diff
- Incivility, AN/I non-resolution, irony AfD concerns Declined 2015-05-16 diff
- Complementary and Alternative Medicine Declined 2015-05-12 diff
- WPPilot Withdrawn 2015-05-05 diff
- QuackGuru Declined 2015-04-20 diff
- Content on Grand Ashura Procession In Kashmir Declined 2015-04-16 diff
- Request for an I-ban Declined 2015-04-12 diff
- WikiBullying Declined 2015-04-08 diff
- Banning Policy II Declined 2015-04-02 diff
January to March
- Infoboxes II Declined (with motion passed in lieu of full case 2015-03-31 diff
- Bobrayner Declined 2015-03-22 diff
- Battleground on e-cig articles Declined 2015-03-19 diff
- Sam Harris BLP Declined 2015-02-25 diff
- Lizabeth Scott's alleged Rusyn ancestry Declined diff
- America: Imagine the World Without Her Declined diff
- Infobox nationality of people from the UK Declined 2015-01-18 diff
- Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 Declined (& withdrawn) 2015-01-01 diff
2014
October to December
- Ian Fleming article Declined 2014-12-24 diff
- Missvain Declined 2014-12-03 diff
- Ahmed Hassan Imran Declined 2014-11-14 diff
- Gamergate Declined 2014-11-04 diff
- Gamaliel Declined 2014-10-29 diff
- DYK wheel warring Declined 2014-10-19 diff
- List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming Declined 2014-10-19 diff
- Issues in Talk:Gamergate controversy Declined 2014-10-17 diff
- Review of policy that led to the blocking of Carriearchdale in order to avoid repeat Declined and withdrawn 2014-10-13 diff
- Editor COI/NPOV problems with BLP Debito Arudou - Declined 2014-10-13 diff
- IPT (Investigative Project on Terrorism) - Declined and withdrawn 2014-10-04 diff
July to September
- Praveen Togadia dispute - Declined 2014-09-09 diff
- Misconduct in the Christianity topic - Withdrawn 2014-09-05 diff
- DragonflySixtyseven - Declined 2014-08-16 diff
- Civility - Declined 2014-08-11 diff
- User:Technical 13 and User:Redrose64 - Declined 2014-07-15 diff
- BLP Issue - Declined 2014-07-07 diff
April to June
- Production Codes… - Declined 2014-05-28 diff
- Airport Alternative Name - Declined 2014-05-13 diff
- Sarah Brown - Declined 2014-05-13 diff
- Rupert Sheldrake - Declined 2014-04-14 diff
- Greenhouse effect - Declined 2014-04-05 diff
January to March
- Debian - Declined 2014-03-20 diff
- Wallis Simpson title of Royal Highness - Declined 2014-03-20 diff
- Use of admin tools by AGK - Declined 2014-03-19 diff
- Ihardlythinkso - Declined 2014-03-16 diff
- Soccer in Australia - Declined 2014-03-12 diff
- Kevin Gorman - Declined in lieu of motion 2014-02-26diff
- Future Perfect at Sunrise - Involved and AdminAcct - Declined 2014-02-21 diff
- Hinduism in Pakistan - Declined 2014-02-14 diff
- Increase of protection on article protected under WP:OFFICE action - Declined in lieu of motion 2014-01-28 diff
- Ancient Egypt - Declined in lieu of motion 2014-01-10 diff
- Dan Murphy - Rejected 2014-01-01 diff
2013
October to December
- Jclemens - Rejected 2013-12-16 diff
- Serbo-Croatian infobox dispute - Rejected 2013-12-11 diff
- Discretionary sanctions - Rejected 2013-12-10 diff
- Persistent Bullying of Rupert Sheldrake Editors - Rejected 2013-12-05 diff
- Baiting - Withdrawn 2013-11-01 diff
- Adam Bishop - Rejected 2013-11-01 diff
- Eurofighter Maximum Speed - Rejected 2013-10-30 diff
- Mayorality of Puerto Rico - Rejected 2013-10-20 diff
July to September
- Hagelin - Withdrawn and taken to WP:AE by filing party[29] archival diff
- Bwilkins - Rejected 2013-08-07 diff
- Request for removal of adminship - Rejected 2013-08-01 diff
- Delicious Carbuncle - Rejected 2013-07-31 diff
- ScienceApologist unblock - Rejected 2013-07-30 diff
- INeverCry Withdrawn after INeverCry requested removal of their admin rights diff
- Mars Rejected 2013-07-21 diff
- Alger Hiss Rejected 2013-07-08 diff
- Linking to Wikipediocracy Rejected 2013-07-07 diff
- Syrian civil war spillover in Lebanon Rejected 2013-07-04 diff
April to June
- Yopie - Rejected 2013-06-29 diff
- Jmh649 - Rejected 2013-06-27 diff
- Copernican Principle - Rejected 2013-04-13 diff
- Gradual Gap Appearance - Rejected 2013-04-08 diff
- Malayalam cinema industry hub - Rejected 2013-04-04 diff
January to March
- Jesus - Rejected diff
- Parts of Jerusalem that are geographically in North West Jerusalem - Rejected diff
- Temporary desysop of Kevin - Motion passed in lieu of full case 2013-03-12 diff
- Content revert and lock of Continuation War article and warning to Paavo273 - Rejected diff
- Article Rescue Squadron - Rejected diff
- WP:IPH and image placeholders - Rejected diff
- BigBabyChips NPOV and Juggalos - Rejected diff
- Pratyeka - Rejected 2013-01-28 diff
- Tagremover disputes - Withdrawn 2013-01-25 diff
- Single-payer health care - Rejected 2013-01-20 diff
- Repeal of hyphen ban - Rejected 2013-01-15 diff
- Firsfron - Rejected - 2013-01-08 diff
- Henderson Knocked out Fedor - Rejected - 2013-01-08 diff
- Hex - Motion passed in lieu of full case - 2013-01-07 diff
2012
October to December
- Christian Science - Rejected 2012-12-30 diff
- Deskana's refusal to perform CU in SPI case - Withdrawn 2012-12-28 diff
- Jerusalem - Motion passed in lieu of full case - 2012-12-27 diff
- Dilazak - Rejected 2012-12-24 diff
- Future Perfect at Sunrise - Rejected 2012-12-20 diff
- Malleus Fatuorum - Rejected 2012-12-19 diff
- Yohowithrum COI - Withdrawn 2012-12-6 diff
- Stripper - Withdrawn 2012-11-25 diff
- Youreallycan - Rejected 2012-11-18 diff
- Resysoping of FCYTravis/Polarscribe - Rejected 2012-11-14 diff
- Youreallycan - Rejected 2012-11-03 diff
- Profesionnalism and civility - Rejected 2012-10-11 diff
- Psychotherapies - Rejected 2012-10-10 diff
- Protection reversion - Rejected 2012-10-05 diff
July to September
- Derogatory slurs injected into NFL fanbase - Rejected 2012-09-15 diff
- EncycloPetey - Motion passed in lieu of full case 2012-09-08 diff
- Featured article process - Rejected 2012-08-24 diff
- Men's rights - Rejected 2012-08-22 diff
- Rush Limbaugh–Sandra Fluke controversy - Rejected 2012-08-20 diff
- Youreallycan - Withdrawn 2012-08-16 diff
- Belle's eyes - Rejected 2012-08-15 diff
- Kissinger N. Sibanda - Rejected 2012-07-27 diff
- Nenpog vs. Guy Macon, Doc James, and Yobol - Rejected 2012-07-19 diff
- Admin involvement and handling of edits by sockpuppets - Rejected 2012-07-13 diff
- Pending Changes RFC close - Rejected 2012-07-08 diff
- Thomas Sowell - Rejected 2012-07-05 diff
April to June
- Sigmund Freud - Rejected 2012-06-14 diff
- Causal body, Mental body, Etheric body, Astral body, Silver cord, and others - Rejected 2012-06-6 diff
- Antony Price - Rejected 2012-05-29 diff
- Nelly Furtado - Rejected 2012-05-18 diff
- Roman Polanski - Rejected 2012-05-12 diff
- Anupam & Bobrayner - Rejected 2012-05-12 diff
- Thomas Sowell - Rejected 2012-05-10 diff
- UpTheRIRA - Rejected 2012-05-10 diff
- Fæ and MBisanz - Rejected 2012-05-04 diff
- Sri Lanka Demographics - Rejected 2012-04-22 diff
January to March
- User:Khoikhoi - Rejected 2012-03-09 diff
- Harassment at Wikimedia Commons - Rejected 2012-03-09 diff
- American Conservatory of Music - Rejected 2012-02-29 diff
- Dalmatia 2 - Rejected 2012-02-29 diff
- Austenasia keep/merge consensus issue - Rejected 2012-02-17 diff
- Reliable Sources Noticeboard closures - Rejected 2012-02-05 diff
- Yopie - Rejected 2012-01-31 diff
- Block review and Afghanistan, India and Pakistan disputes - Rejected 2012-01-27 diff
- Barack Obama - Rejected 2012-01-10 diff
- Greyhood and Putin - Rejected 2012-01-02 diff
2011
October to December
- Demi Moore - Rejected 2011-12-24 diff
- Scientific realism - Withdrawn 2011-12-02 diff
- ARBPIA 3 - Rejected 2011-12-01 diff
- Removal and Deletion of Images and Related Issues - Rejected 2011-12-01 diff
- Unblocks and enabling - Rejected 2011-11-26 diff
- Russavia, Biophys, etc. - Rejected 2011-11-22 diff
- Rich Farmbrough - Rejected 2011-11-17 diff
- Controversial images, NOTCENSORED, and Foundation principles - Rejected 2011-10-26 diff
- Azerbaijan-Armenia-Iran-Turkey - Rejected 2011-10-15 diff
- WikiProject: Conservatism - Rejected 2011-10-11 diff
July to September
- User:La goutte de pluie - Rejected 2011-09-13 diff
- Astroturfing on Singaporean politics - Rejected 2011-09-02 diff
- User:NYyankees51 - Rejected 2011-08-22 diff
- User:Δ - Rejected 2011-08-04 diff
- Illicit Drug Interventions - Rejected 2011-08-03 diff
- Barbara Boxer Comments Re: Title - Rejected 2011-07-29 diff
- Alliance Peru Bolivia 1873 - Rejected 2011-07-20 diff
April to June
- Nabla - Motion passed in lieu of full case 2011-06-25 diff
- Unblock of an indefinite block for Single-Purpose Account without any warning - Rejected 2011-06-25 diff
- Political activism - Rejected 2011-06-19 diff
- Arms of Bagrotioni - Rejected 2011-06-15 diff
- International Space Station - Rejected 2011-06-13 diff
- Falkland Islands and related articles - Rejected 2011-06-09 diff
- Mindbunny's comments on biographies of living persons - Rejected 2011-06-01 diff
- Angel670 - Rejected 2011-05-31 diff
- BLP and flagged revisions - Rejected 2011-05-27 diff
- Franklin child prostitution ring allegations - Rejected 2011-05-21 diff
- Lyndon LaRouche 3 - Rejected 2011-04-26 diff
- Racepacket - Rejected 2011-04-20 diff
- Multidimensional family therapy - Rejected 2011-04-20 diff
- Indian history topic ban - Rejected 2011-04-16 diff
- Ashot Arzumanyan - Rejected 2011-04-11 diff
- David Irving - Rejected 2011-04-08 diff
January to March
- Jagged 85 RFC/U and cleanup - Rejected 2011-03-31 diff
- MZMcBride 3 - Withdrawn 2011-03-30 diff
- Duke53 - Withdrawn 2011-03-22 diff
- The Beatles - Rejected 2011-03-19 diff
- Tuluva people - Rejected 2011-02-24 diff
- Henri Coanda defamation - Rejected 2011-02-24 diff
- DMSBel appeal of topic ban - Rejected 2011-02-03 diff
- Envision EMI, LLC - Rejected 2011-01-24 diff
- Andrei nacu - Rejected 2011-01-24 diff
- O Fenian - Rejected 2011-01-15 diff
- 8mm caliber: 7.92mm calibre designation - Rejected 2011-01-02 diff
2010
October to December
- John J. Bulten - Rejected 2010-12-25 diff
- Yellowmonkey - Motion passed in lieu of a full case 2010-12-24 diff
- Ejaculation Photos - Rejected 2010-12-14 diff
- Cousin Marriage- Rejected 2010-12-14 diff
- Money multiplier - Rejected 2010-11-30 diff
- WikipediaExperts - Rejected 2010-11-30 diff
- Adnan Oktar - Rejected 2010-11-25 diff
- MickMacNee - Rejected 2010-11-25 diff
- Eroberer – Rejected 2010-11-15 diff
- Edward321 – Rejected 2010-11-08 diff
- Pumpie - Rejected 2010-10-20 diff
- Cultural Judaism - Rejected 2010-10-11 diff
- Transcendental Meditation 2 - Rejected 2010-10-01 diff
July to September
- MOS:JP – Romanization for words of English origin - Rejected 2009-09-21 diff
- Major deletion job by Jclemens – Rejected 2010-09-17 diff
- Disburbed: Asylum (Release Date) – Rejected 2010-08-30 diff
- Cabal: World War II article – Rejected 2010-08-30 diff
- Blablaaa – Rejected 2010-08-19 diff
- Lead for State Church of the Roman Empire - Rejected 2010-08-15 diff
- Noloop and Slrubenstein - Rejected 2010-08-15 diff
- User:Fanpoptvshows - Rejected 2010-08-10 diff
- Existence of historical Jesus - Rejected 2010-07-29 diff
- Ethnic advocacy COI - Rejected 2010-07-20 diff
- Blocking and unblocking - Rejected 2010-07-16 diff
April to June
- Appeal of sanction against Aregakn - Rejected 2010-06-24 diff
- Longevity of citation needed tags - Withdrawn 2010-05-31 diff
- Keegscee - Rejected 2010-05-30 diff
- Districts of Kosovo in Serbia - Rejected 2010-05-21 diff
- A Nobody - Motion passed in lieu of opening case 2010-05-20 diff
- 1953 Iranian coup POV - Rejected 2010-05-08 diff
- CONMEBOL tables - Rejected 2010-05-08 diff
- Edits to Sharia article - Rejected 2010-04-30 diff
- Christ myth theory - Rejected 2010-04-17 diff
- COI edits in respect of living individuals - Rejected 2010-04-06 diff
January to March
- Dirty, Dangerous and Demeaning - Rejected 2010-03-30 diff
- Enforcement of Climate Change discretionary sanctions - Rejected 2010-03-29 diff
- WP:OWN in Judaism articles - Rejected 2010-03-16 diff
- Durova and Shoemaker's Holiday - Motion passed in lieu of full case 2010-03-15 diff
- Trusilver's unblock of Brews ohare - Motion passed in lieu of full case 2010-03-15 diff
- Elizabeth II - Rejected 2010-03-11 diff
- Malik Shabazz - Rejected 2010-03-11 diff
- User:Steaphen - Rejected 2010-03-08 diff
- Catholic Church - Rejected 2010-03-04 diff
- Nigam Arora - Rejected 2010-03-04 diff
- Christ myth theory - Rejected 2010-03-02 diff
- Bourbon-Two Sicilies - Rejected 2010-02-24 diff
- Pedro II of Brazil - Rejected 2010-02-24 diff
- Ikip - Withdrawn 2010-02-22 diff
- Proofreader777 blocks - Rejected 2010-02-20 diff
- Zeno's paradoxes - Rejected 2010-02-14 diff
- Fringe theory ground rules - Rejected 2010-02-10 diff
- Jéské Couriano - Rejected 2010-02-02 diff
- David Irving Biography - Rejected 2010-02-02 diff
- WP:PROD wheel war - Rejected 2010-01-31 diff
- Craigy144 - Motion passed in lieu of full case 2010-01-30 diff
- BLP Deletions - Motion passed in lieu of full case 2010-01-22 diff
- POV tag at Israel and the apartheid analogy - Rejected 2010-01-18 diff
- Badagnani - Rejected 2010-01-17 diff
- Character list merge - Rejected 2010-01-07 diff
- Climate Change - Rejected 2010-01-05 diff
- Climate Change Probation - Rejected 2010-01-05 diff
2009
October to December
- McCready edit warring topic ban - Rejected 2009-12-30 diff
- Jehochman - Rejected 2009-12-29 diff
- SeanNovack and Marlin1975 - Rejected 2009-12-24 diff
- GiacomoReturned - Rejected 2009-12-23, superseded by motion to close. diff
- Jehochman's block of Drolz09 - Rejected 2009-12-20 diff]
- Audit Subcommittee - Rejected 2009-11-17 diff
- Consensus and insertion of information on Philippines - Rejected 2009-12-07 diff
- FT2-Jehochman - Rejected 2009-11-28 diff
- Maltese Nobility - Rejected 2009-11-20 diff
- JohnWBarber Versageek Lar - Rejected 2009-11-20 diff
- HistoricWarrior007 topic-ban appeal - Rejected 2009-11-13 diff
- Skipsievert - Rejected 2009-11-08 diff
- Breaking 3RR by user Peltimikko - Rejected 2009-11-07 diff
- VAG - Rejected 2009-11-07 diff
- Rcool35 - Rejected 2009-11-05 diff
- Silent Films and Wildhartlivie - Rejected 2009-11-03 diff
- Rjanag - Rejected 2009-11-03 diff
- Opel Kadett - Rejected 2009-11-03 diff
- Niteshift36 - Rejected 2009-10-29 diff
- Gaza "Wikipedia Edit War" - Rejected 2009-10-22 diff
- Dispute over the neutrality of the leading European map - Rejected 2009-10-22 diff
- Quantum Mysticism - Rejected 2009-10-14 diff
- Conversion Therapy - Rejected 2009-10-13 diff
- Administrators aiding a sock puppet at RFA - Rejected, matter handled by motion 2009-10-11 diff
- RS and Fringe Noticeboard - Rejected 2009-10-05 diff
- Law's unblock of ChildofMidnight - Rejected 2009-10-05 diff
- Attack by multiple admins upon User:Linas - Rejected 2009-10-04 diff
July to September
- Chan Tai San - Rejected 2009-09-28 diff
- Arbitration needed for this article's dispute page - Rejected 2009-09-28 diff
- Dr90s - Rejected 2009-09-23 diff
- Scope of NLT - Rejected 2009-09-14 diff
- Pigsonthewing 3 - Rejected 2009-09-14 diff
- Discussion page protocols - Rejected 2009-09-14 diff
- Catholic Church Renaming - Withdrawn by filing party 2009-09-04 diff
- Arbitration Request by Logos5557 - Rejected 2009-09-01 diff
- Seha - Rejected 2009-08-26 diff
- Javert, Rjd0060, and Jimbo - Withdrawn by filing party 2009-08-11 diff
- Allstarecho - Rejected 2009-08-07 diff
- Carabinieri Dispute - Rejected 2009-08-03 diff
- Geogre and Risker - Rejected 2009-07-31 diff
- Stephen Bain - Rejected 2009-07-26 diff
- Use of "disputed territories", "occupied territories" and related terminology in the context of the Arab-Israeli dispute - Rejected 2009-07-16diff
- Velela - Rejected 2009-07-15 diff.
- DreamHost - Rejected 2009-07-15 diff.
- Kosovska Mitrovica naming dispute - Rejected 2009-07-14 diff.
April to June
- Edit deletion appeal - Rejected 2009-06-28 diff.
- Eastern Europe - Rejected 2009-06-26 diff
- telaviv1: "trial" resulting from sockpuppetryaccusation - Rejected 2009-06-24 diff
- IPod Touch Criticisms Section - Rejected 2009-06-23 diff
- St. John's University (NY) Article - Rejected 2009-06-23 diff
- Arbitration request on greek/albanian zones - Rejected 2009-06-11 diff
- Intel Corp - Butterfly Effect of Lawsuits - Rejected 2009-06-05 diff
- Allegations of administrator misconduct - Rejected 2009-06-05 diff
- Moses of Chorene - Rejected 2009-06-04 diff
- Collect - Rejected 2009-05-28 diff
- Giano II wheel war - Rejected 2009-05-26 diff
- Individualist anarchism - Rejected 2009-05-22 diff
- Baronets naming dispute - Rejected 2009-05-18 diff
- WP:NOT#PLOT - Rejected 2009-05-11 diff
- Reckless Automated Bot/Script operation concerning images - Rejected 2009-05-05 diff
- Koi - Rejected 2009-05-05 diff
- Jvolkblum - Rejected 2009-04-04 diff
January to March
- wise_dude321 - Rejected 2009-03-26 diff
- Myth - Rejected 2009-03-22 diff
- Phi Kappa Phi - Rejected 2009-03-15 diff
- Iberian-Guanche inscriptions - Rejected 2009-03-11 diff
- Skatergal Rejected - 2009-03-06 diff
- Una voice - rejected 2009-02-26 diff
- Bollywood films - Rejected 2009-02-18 diff
- NatalieDee.com - Rejected 2009-01-31 diff
- Posturewriter - Rejected 2009-01-29 diff
- Implementation of the pseudoscience special enforcement - Rejected 2009-01-27 diff
- Flagged Revisions/Jimbo Wales - Rejected 2009-01-27 diff
- Giano - Rejected 2009-01-27 diff
- White Brazilian - Rejected 2009-01-22 diff
- Bishzilla - Rejected but a motion passed 2009-01-21 diff
- The Man Who Would Be Queen and related pages - Rejected 2009-01-18 diff
- Giano II - Rejected 2009-01-16 diff before archiving
- Ayn Rand Limbo - Rejected 2009-01-15 diff
- Episodes and Characters 3 - Rejected 2009-01-09 - Case diff
- Betacommand - Rejected 1 January 2009 - diff
2008
October to December
- GabrielVelasquez - Rejected 30 December 2008 - diff
- Ncmvocalist/Clerking - Rejected 28 December 2008 - diff
- Guido den Broeder - Rejected 24 December 2008 - diff
- Cirt, Jehochman, and Qwerty612 – Rejected, 30 November 2008 – Diff.
- David Gerard - Rejected 22 November 2008 - diff
- Removal Woods - Rejected 18 November 2008 - diff
- Bennett Lebow - Rejected 17 November 2008 - diff
- Aspartame_controversy - Rejected 11 November 2008 - diff
- Adraeus v. Deacon of Pndapetzim [...] - Rejected 7 November 2008 - diff
- Arjun MBT - Rejected 7 November 2008 - diff
- Wizardman's closure of the Ginger Jolie deletion debate – Rejected 27 October 2008 - diff.
- Request for desysop and block of administrator Hemanshu - Rejected 21 October 2008 - diff
- Tax liens and Joe the Plumber - Rejected 21 October 2008 - diff
- Madonna Blond Ambition Tour Title Dispute - Rejected 20 October 2008 - diff
- Virgin America Focus City Dispute - Rejected 15 October 2008 - diff
July to September
- Unapproved admin bots - Rejected but a motion passed 25 September 2008 - diff
- Racism section at Controversies regarding Jehovah's Witnesses - Rejected 20 September 2008 - diff
- Supreme Court and U.S. code quotes - Rejected 14 September 2008 - diff
- Arjun MBT - Rejected 14 September 2008 - diff
- Georgewilliamherbert - Rejected 12 September 2008 - diff
- Jfdwolff - Rejected 10 September 2008 - Diff.
- Chrislk02 - Rejected 9 September 2008 - diff
- Majorly - Moot, Majorly resigned as admin 03 September 2008 - diff
- Elonka - Rejected 28 August 2008 - diff
- Tenmei and Nick Dowling - Declined 11 August 2008 - diff
- Ethnic minorities in Iran (and associated articles) - Withdrawn/declined 6 August 2008 - diff
- Kmweber - Declined 6 August 2008 - diff
- Bedford - Declined 3 August 2008 - diff
- Rschen7754 - Withdrawn 30 July 2008 - diff
- Barack Obama - Declined 30 July 2008 - diff
- Guido den Broeder - Declined 17 July 2008 - diff
- Bardcom - Declined 16 July 2008 - diff
- Arthur Rubin - Declined 10 July 2008 - diff
- Gerald Guterman - Declined 8 July 2008 - diff
- Orangemarlin - Declined 2 July 2008 - diff (see also Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Orangemarlin)
April to June
- FT2 - Withdrawn 30 June 2008 - diff
- Evolutionary psychology - Declined 24 June 2008 - diff
- Intelligent Design editors (clarification) - Declined 21 June 2008 - diff
- Can't sleep, clown will eat me - Declined 16 June 2008 - diff
- Anti-Americanism - Removed (filer banned) 15 June 2008 - diff
- Intelligent design editors - Declined 15 June 2008 - diff
- SevenOfDiamonds 2 - Declined 15 June 2008 - diff
- Dzonatas - Declined 11 June 2008 - diff
- Pilotguy - Declined 5 June 2008 - diff
- Attachment theory - Declined 29 May 2008 - diff
- Zscout370 - Declined/withdrawn 29 May 2008 - diff
- Moulton - Declined 29 May 2008 - diff
- Betacommand 3 - Declined 27 May 2008 - diff
- Generation X - Declined 26 May 2008 - diff
- Dario D.-Wikidemo - Declined 25 May 2008 - diff
- Chrisjnelson and "Originally" - Declined 25 May 2008 - diff
- Allegations of state terrorism by the United States - Declined 18 May 2008 - diff
- Anti-Americanism - Declined 17 May 2008 - diff
- The Undertow - Moot (desyssopped and cannot be reinstated without Committee approval) 15 May 2008 - diff
- ChrisO - Declined 14 May 2008 - diff
- Ulster Defence Regiment - Declined 08 May 2008 - diff
- SaltyBoatr - Declined 06 May 2008 - diff
- Request to lift article ban - Declined 03 May 2008 - diff
- William M. Connolley - Declined 03 May 2008 - diff
- JoshuaZ - Declined 29 April 2008 - diff
- Floyd McKissick, Jr - Declined 27 April 2008 - diff
- Melissa Farley - Declined 26 April 2008 - diff
- Appeal re Iantresman - Rejected 22 April 2008 - diff
- South Slavic Diacritics - Rejected 21 April 2008 - diff
- ScienceApologist-JzG - Rejected 21 April 2008 - diff
- Egyptians - Declined 10 April 2008 - diff
- IZAK 2 - Declined 9 April 2008 - diff
- WP:NCGN - Declined 7 April 2008 - diff
- Davenbelle - Declined 5 April 2008 - diff
- Teen Challenge - Declined 3 April 2008 - diff
- Episode images - Declined 2 April 2008 - diff
January to March
- Child Psychology - Declined 30 March 2008 - diff
- Theresa Lopez-Fitzgerald - Declined 28 March 2008 - diff
- Jack Merridew - Declined 26 March 2008 - diff
- Illyrians - Declined 23 March 2008 - diff
- Mackan79 - Declined 17 March 2008 - diff
- Appeal of topic ban for Whig - Declined 17 March 2008 - diff
- Mikkalai - Declined 5 March 2008 - diff
- Russian apartment bombings - Declined 2 March 2008 - diff
- "Hacker" article terminology - Declined 26 February 2008 - diff
- WSYX-TV - Declined 22 February 2008 - diff
- JzG - Declined 15 February 2008 - diff
- Ukrainian Insurgent Army - Declined 14 February 2008 - diff
- Plain English Campaign - Declined 12 February 2008 - diff
- ABCCL deletion - Declined 10 February 2008 - diff
- Chuck Marean-Gwernol - Declined 6 February 2008 - diff
- Interchange Fee - Declined 6 February 2008 - diff
- Homeopathy - Declined 03 February 2008 - diff
- Alice - Declined 02 February 2008 - diff
- Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Declined 2008-01-31 - diff
- Webby Awards - Declined 25 January 2008 - diff
- SPOV and civility in fringe articles - Declined 23 January 2008 - diff
- Austrian economics - Declined 21 January 2008 - diff
- Asian fetish - Declined 21 January 2008 - diff
- Sorcerer's Stone vs. Philosopher's Stone - Withdrawn 20 January 2008 - diff
- Rollback consensus - Declined 19 January 2008 - diff
- Plovdiv external link - Declined 18 January 2008 - diff
- Elvis Presley / Onefortyone - Declined 15 January 2008 - diff
- Extraordinary rendition by the United States - Declined 15 January 2008 - diff
- Principality of Sealand - Withdrawn 12 January 2008 - diff
- Anti-Dominicanism - Declined 11 January 2008 diff
- Armenia-Azerbaijan 3 - Declined 11 January 2008 diff
- Ireland national football team (IFA) - Declined 9 January 2008 diff
- Thomas Basboll - Declined 6 January 2008 - diff
- BlueAzure - Declined 4 January 2008 - diff
- Lavvu - Declined 3 January 2008 - diff
2007
October to December
- Defender 911 - Declined 23 December 2007 - diff
- Cold fusion - Declined 19 December 2007 - diff
- No Original Research - Declined 18 December 2007 - diff
- Rob Bell - Declined - 18 December 2007 - diff
- Bates method - Declined - 16 December 2007 - diff
- "Occupied" vs. "Disputed/Captured" Territories - Declined - 03 December 2007 - diff
- Burntsauce appeal - Declined - 3 December 2007 - diff
- Geobox and categories - Declined - 3 December 2007 - diff
- Ryulong - Declined - 3 December 2007 - diff
- MONGO 2 - Declined - 27 November 2007 - diff
- José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero - Declined - 24 November 2007 - diff
- Billy Ego unblocking appeal - Declined - 23 November 2007 - diff
- Dalmatia 2 - Declined - 21 November 2007 - diff
- Jasenovac concentration camp - Declined - 13 November 2007 - diff
- Helicopter (elix/helix) - Declined - 11 November 2007 - diff
- Kmweber - Declined - 11 November 2007 - diff
- Article Title for 3rd US Infantry - Declined - 10 November 2007 - diff
- Indian Rebellion of 1857 - Declined - 8 November 2007 - diff
- Moriori - Withdrawn - 2 November 2007 - diff
- Tom Cryer - Declined - 31 October 2007 - diff
- Steam (content delivery) - Withdrawn/declined - 27 October 2007 - diff
- Cberlet and Dking - Declined - 25 October 2007 - diff
- Who requested Essjay to ArbCom? - Declined/Removed - 23 October 2007 - diff
- Protection of Bible - Declined - 18 October 2007 - diff
- Frontline - Declined - 16 October 2007 - diff
- Passive smoking - Declined - 13 October 2007 - diff
- Iantresman - Declined - 13 October 2007 - diff
- Dethme0w-Joaquín Martínez - Filer indefblocked - 11 October 2007 - diff
- Ned Scott-White Cat - Declined - 6 October 2007 - diff
- Hugh Hefner - Declined - 5 October 2007 - diff
July to September
- Novak Đoković - Declined - 24 September 2007 - diff
- Ankush135 - Declined - 16 September 2007 - diff
- Njyoder 2 - Declined as premature - 14 September 2007 - diff
- Violetriga - Declined - 9 September 2007 - diff
- CyclePat - Resolved/rejected - 9 September 2007 - diff
- Non-free media at Intelligent design - Withdrawn - 7 September 2007 - diff
- Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley - Declined - 7 September 2007 - diff
- Serbophobia - Declined - 4 September 2007 - diff
- The Powerpuff Girls - Declined - 4 September 2007 - diff
- Foxy Brown - Declined - 4 September 2007 - diff
- Mmbabies - Withdrawn - 1 September 2007 - diff
- Miltopia - Declined - 28 August 2007 - diff
- Jebbrady and Armstrong-related articles - Declined as premature - 27 August 2007 - diff
- Poetlister - Removed - 27 August 2007 - diff
- Deletion of Child pornography article - Removed - 26 August 2007 - diff 1 diff 2
- Iasson request to lift ban - Declined - 26 August 2007 - diff
- European Union - Declined - 17 August 2007 - diff
- Commonwealth realms - Declined - 15 August 2007 - diff
- Shaftesbury - Declined - 14 August 2007 - diff
- IPSOS - Withdrawn/declined - 11 August 2007 - diff
- Food Irradiation - Declined - 9 August 2007 - diff
- Shreshth91 - Removed as resolved (subject desysopped) - 7 August 2007 - diff
- DreamGuy - Removed - 6 August 2007 - diff
- NE2 - Declined - 6 August 2007 - diff
- Spoiler Warnings (2nd request) - Declined - 6 August 2007 - diff
- First Vision - Declined - 5 August 2007 - diff
- Roman Catholic Diocese of Miami - Declined - 23 July 2007 - diff
- Swami Ramdev - Declined - 23 July 2007 - diff
- The Word "Terrorist" - Declined - 22 July 2007 - diff
- Rotary International - Declined - 18 July 2007 - diff
- FeloniousMonk - Removed (filer banned) - 17 July 2007 - diff
- David Laibman - Declined - 11 July 2007 - diff
- JAF1970 - Withdrawn - 10 July 2007 - diff
- DreamGuy - Declined - 8 July 2007 - diff
- Spoiler Warning - Declined - 6 July 2007 - diff
- Mark Kim - Declined - 6 July 2007 - diff
- Irishguy - Declined (filer banned) - 4 July 2007 - diff
- TTN - Declined - 2 July 2007 - diff
- Bus Stop (2) - Declined - 2 July 2007 - diff
April to June
- Kuban kazak - Withdrawn - 26 June 2007 - diff
- Satellites of Saturn - Declined - 26 June 2007 - diff
- MEMRI - Declined - 25 June 2007 - diff
- Appeal of His excellency - Declined - 25 June 2007 - diff
- Elvira Arellano - Declined - 24 June 2007 - diff
- MONGO 2 - Removed (banned filer) - 24 June 2007 - diff
- 55.144.161.143 - Declined - 22 June 2007 - diff
- Pak21 - Declined - 21 June 2007 - diff
- J.K. Rowling - Declined - 18 June 2007 - diff
- Chittisinghpura massacre - Declined - 16 June 2007 - diff
- Block appeal of Rbj - Declined - 16 June 2007 - diff
- Request for reconsideration of "Giano" decision (Kelly Martin) - Declined - 13 June 2007 - diff
- Request for probation extension for Reddi - Declined - 13 June 2007 - diff
- Willy on Wheels - Declined - 10 June 2007 - diff
- Appeal of Rackabello indefinite block - Declined - 10 June 2007 - diff
- Woohookitty - Declined - 9 June 2007 - diff
- Use of Template:Trivia - Declined - 8 June 2007 - diff
- Mitch Thrower - Declined - 8 June 2007 - diff
- 71.112.115.55 - Withdrawn - 3 June 2007 - diff
- Depictions of Muhammad - Declined/banned filer - 2 June 2007 - diff
- JJay - Declined - 29 May 2007 - diff
- Chrislk02 - Declined - 25 May 2007 - diff
- Garzo - Withdrawn - 23 May 2007 - diff
- History Reference Desk - Declined/banned filer - 22 May 2007 - diff
- QZ deletion dispute - Declined - 21 May 2007 - diff
- Bus stop - Declined - 18 May 2007 - diff
- Ozgurgerilla - Withdrawn - 14 May 2007 - diff
- Everyking appeal - Declined - 14 May 2007 - diff
- AACS encryption key controversy - Declined - 14 May 2007 - diff (additional removal the next day)
- Jerrypp772000 - Declined as unnecessary - 12 May 2007 - diff
- Compromised accounts with Sysop access - Declined - 10 May 2007 - diff
- Dmcdevit - Declined - 8 May 2007 - diff
- Request for policy change certification authorizing use of the ISA - Declined - 7 May 2007 - diff
- Soviet occupation of Romania - Declined - 3 May 2007 - diff
- ChrisGriswold - Declined after voluntary desysopping - 2 May 2007 - diff
- 2007 Asta Roma-Manchester United conflict - Declined - 2 May 2007 - diff
- Justin Guarini - Declined - 2 May 2007 - diff
- Killian documents - Declined - 2 May 2007 - diff
- MONGO-Thomas Basbol - Withdrawn after comments - 30 April 2007 - diff
- Bates Method (2) - Declined - 30 April 2007 - diff
- John Smith's-Giovanni 33 - Declined - 27 April 2007 diff
- Ngo Dinh Diem - Declined - 25 April 2007 - diff
- University of Wisconsin redirect - Declined - 22 April 2007 - diff
- Appeal of Daniel Brandt - Declined 17 April 2007 - diff
- Davesmith33 - Rejected 10 April 2007 - diff
- Category:Kurdestan - Rejected 8 April 2007 - diff
- Online tutoring - Rejected 5 April 2007 - diff
- BenjiWolf - Withdrawn (no longer necessary) 5 April 2007 - diff
January to March
- Billy Ego-Sandstein - Rejected 31 March 2007 - diff (note: a subsequent request was accepted)
- Nationalist - Rejected/deemed moot 29 March 2007 - diff
- Richard Walter - Handled off-wiki 29 March 2007 - diff
- Metzenberg-ZayZayEM - Rejected 27 March 2007 - diff
- User:Dbachman - Rejected 26 March 2007 - diff
- Lucius Cornelius Sulla - Rejected 22 March 2007 - diff
- Discordian works - Rejected 20 March 2007 - diff
- User:BabyDweezil - Rejected 18 March 2007 - diff
- Chess biographies - Rejected 17 March 2007 - diff
- Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them - Rejected 15 March 2007 - diff
- Arthur Ellis - Early closure 13 March 2007 - diff
- Essjay - Rejected 10 March 2007 - diff
- 1902 Corona del Rey - Rejected March 2007 - diff
- Bates Method - Rejected 3 March 2007 - diff
- GordonWatts - Rejected 28 Feb 2007 - diff
- Flameviper - Rejected 28 Feb 2007 - diff
- Highway 401 - Rejected 27 Feb 2007 - diff
- ElKevbo - Rejected 27 Feb 2007 - diff
- Instantnood4 - Rejected 26 Feb 2007 - diff
- LUCPOL - Rejected 24 Feb 2007 - diff
- Nearly Headless Nick - Withdrawn, deferred to RfC 19 Feb 2007 - diff
- Anglicization of French administrative terms - Rejected 19 Feb 2007 - diff
- "Wikipedia is failing" essay - Rejected/deemed moot 17 Feb 2007 - diff
- Indian Institute of Planning and Management - Rejected 6 Feb 2007 - diff
- Lucky 6.9 - Rejected 4 Feb 2007 - diff
- Need for existence of #wikipedia-en-admins - Rejected 1 Feb 2007 - diff
- SuperDeng - Rejected 31 Jan 2007 - diff
- Pseudoscience case (arbitration irregularities) - Rejected 21 Jan 2007 -#dff
- University of Phoenix - Rejected 17 Jan 2007 - diff
- Valve audio amplifiers - Rejected 13 Jan 2007 - diff
2006
October to December
- Satanism - Rejected 26 Dec 2006 - diff
- Huaiwei and Singapore Changi Airport - Rejected 26 Dec 2006 - diff
- Jayjg - Rejected 23 Dec 2006 - diff
- Appeal by Nobs01 — Rejected 19 Dec 2006 — diff
- Izanbardprince — Rejected 12 Dec 2006 — diff
- Ral315 — Rejected 12 Dec 2006 — diff
- Jews for Jesus — Rejected 9 Dec 2006 — diff
- Cool Cat — Removed as WP:POINT 8 Dec 2006 — diff
- Appeal by Prof02 — Rejected 1 Dec 2006 — diff
- "Sockpuppets" (Mystic/Lahiru) - Rejected 30 Nov 2006 - diff
- "The Office" - Rejected 26 Nov 2006 - diff
- Brahmah Kumaris World Spiritual University - Rejected 14 Nov 2006 - diff (a subsequent case was accepted)
- Israeli POV - Rejected 13 Nov 2006 - diff
- Will Smith - Rejected 9 Nov 2006 - diff
- User:Cbuhl79 — Rejected 9 Nov 2006 — diff
- H. Elwood Gilliland — Withdrawn as mooted by community ban 7 November 2006 — diff
- Appeal by Bonaparte — Rejected 31 October 2006 — diff
- Community Ban for User:Brya — Rejected 28 October 2006 — diff
- Fox News — Rejected 28 October 2006 — diff
- Vivian Gaither Senior High School — Rejected 28 October 2006 — diff
- Splash — Rejected 28 October 2006 — diff
- User:Arthur Ellis appeal — Rejected 25 October 2006 — diff
- JJay — Rejected 25 October 2006 — diff
- GPS and Einstein — Rejected 20 October 2006 — diff
- "Black people" article — Rejected 20 October 2006 — diff
- User:Gwernol — Rejected — diff
- Cold fusion — Rejected 18 October 2006 — diff
- KarlBunker — Rejected 18 October 2006 — diff
- Union of Moldavians in Pridnestrovie — Rejected 17 October 2006 — diff
- SlimVirgin — Rejected 13 October 2006 — diff
July to September
- User:Sarner — Rejected diff
- Vincente Fox — Rejected diff
- Jarlaxle Artemis 3 - Rejected diff
- "New anti-Semitism" article - Rejected diff
- Splash's Unsemiprotects - Withdrawn after comments diff
- MyWikiBiz - Rejected (subject later banned by Jimbo) diff
- (First) Appeal by Dbiv - Rejected diff (a subsequent appeal was granted)
- Emil Kraepelin - Rejected (initiator of case indefinitely banned) diff
- Jgp - Rejected - diff
- Sam Sloan - Rejected diff
- Derrick Smart - Rejected diff (a subsequent case was accepted)
- JTKiefer - Withdrawn after comments diff
- General Tojo - Rejected (subject community banned) diff
January to June
- UCRGrad - Rejected diff
- Cyde - Rejected diff
- SlimVirgin et al. - Rejected diff
- Kelly Martin, Snowspinner, and Tony Sidaway - Rejected diff
- Jeffery O. Gustafson - Rejected diff
- Dmcdevit - Withdrawn diff
2005
July to December
- Phroziac and karmafist - Rejected diff
- SlimVirgin – Rejected diff
- EddieSegoura and suspected sockpuppets - Withdrawn to give Eddie a second chance diff
- E Pluribus Anthony v. Chris Bennett – Rejected (diff)
- Ray Lopez - Rejected, subject of proposed case is under permanent ban by proclamation and no case is neccessary or useful. diff
- User:Wiglaf - Rejected, parties encouraged to follow other methods of dispute resolution diff
- User:Germen - Rejected in favour of mediation diff
- User:Sumnakay - Rejected diff
- User:Joke137 - Rejected diff
- Thetruth - Rejected diff
- Time Cube Guy - Rejected diff
- Hogeye, Albamuth, Kevehs - Rejected diff
- Authentic Matthew - Rejected diff
- JuliusThyssen - Rejected - Subject has stopped editing Wikipedia. diff
- Zen-master - Rejected - Parties encouraged to follow other methods of dispute resolution. diff
March to June
- AndyL - Rejected - No evidence of wrongdoing: Try RfC or mediation first. diff
- MARMOT - Rejected - user may be banned as a disruptive user. diff (Note: The user reformed, then repudiated again)
- Ed Poor - Moved to BJAODN; users can't bring arbitration against themselves. diff
- Jguk - Rejected; content dispute. diff
- Request to reopen /Noah Peters - Withdrawn/Rejected - Apollomelos (who brought forward the request) has left the project and Noah Peters is already hardbanned. diff
- The Number, Sollogfan, et al. - Rejected. User:The Number, User:Sollogfan, etc. are considered trolls and can be blocked on sight. diff
- Xiong - Rejected diff
- James F. - Rejected; one-time issue, try earlier steps in the dispute resolution process. diff
- Everyking 3 - Withdrawn as both parties are willing to go to mediation. diff
- AndyL - Rejected; dispute seems to have settled itself; try mediation if needed. diff
- SPUI - Rejected; try earlier steps in the dispute resolution process. diff
- (Xiong and Netoholic) vs Snowspinner et al - Rejected; seeing if the recent ArbCom decision against Netoholic will solve the problem diff
- user:SummerFR vs. user:BaronLarf - Rejected; try earlier steps in the dispute resolution process. diff
- User:STP - Rejected; user has stopped editing, and is probably simply a disruptive sockepuppet. diff
- User:Fadix vs User:White Cat - Rejected; referred to earlier steps in the dispute resolution process; participants admonished to limit the verbosity of their complaints. diff
- B1link82 - Withdrawn as B1link82 was indefinitely blocked for simple vandalism. diff
- Geni vs. Earl Andrew - Rejected ; try earlier steps in dispute resolution. diff
- IZAK - Rejected ; try earlier steps in dispute resolution. diff
- Violetriga & Spinboy - Rejected; Insufficient grounds for arbitration. diff
- Circumcision and Anti-semitism - Withdrawn diff
- Snowspinner - Rejected; please bring more evidence of disputes. diff
- Trey Stone - Rejected; no input required for banning abusive sockpuppets on sight. diff
- Stude62 v. Patnaik - Rejected; little to no solid evidence of a dispute has been brought. diff
- Snowspinner - Rejected as the case was brought by Snowspinner himself. diff
- Talk:Sydney Hilton bombing - Rejected; content dispute. diff
- Jayjg - Rejected; evidence provided is not particularly representative of a dispute. diff
- Adam Carr - Rejected; general arbitrator sentiment is that earlier forms of dispute resolution are likely to work more effectively than arbitration would. diff
- David Gerard, Neutrality, Cyrius - Superseded by Jimbo Wales' indication that he is going to hear the case. See statement here. diff1 diff2
- Banned user request - Rejected; the Arbcom feels they can do nothing with this request and express their belief that a block is likely to stick if the behaviour of a user is meant to be an imitation of that of a banned user. diff
- Viajero - Rejected; please try earlier forms of dispute resolution and attempt to phrase requests such that they relate to behaviour, not article content. diff
January to February
- Everyking clarification - Rejected as separate new case, answered as clarification of previous ruling. diff
- Anti-circumcision activists/Foreskin worshippers - Rejected, covered in /Robert the Bruce. diff
- Exploding Boy - Rejected, covered in /Robert the Bruce. diff
- Arb Com, Jimbo Wales, Wikimedia foundation - Rejected, unfounded allegations. diff
- Certain Editors Contributing to WikiEn-L - Rejected
- Dbachmann - Rejected, covered (and decided) in Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Antifinnugor. diff
- Tigermoon vs. Slrubenstein - Rejected; Please be specific in your complaint. diff
- Safavids 2 - Rejected; Try earlier steps in dispute resolution. diff
- Liberal Party of Australia - Rejected; Content dispute, try earlier steps in dispute resolution. diff
- Safavids - Rejected; Content dispute, try ealier steps in dispute resolution. diff
- Axon (/Axon)- Withdrawn diff
- 66.20.28.21 - Withdrawn after clarification it was covered by current order. diff
- Acidmonkey - Withdrawn diff
- Chris 73 - Rejected; Try earlier steps in dispute resolution. diff
- 152.163.101.7 - Rejected; User has left the project and was indefinitely banned as requested. diff
- Slrubenstein - Rejected as a bad-faith request. diff
- Slrubenstein - Rejected; Nothing in the case is worthy of reprimand. diff
- Gzornenplatz/Wik - Withdrawn diff
- Davenbelle - Rejected; Try earlier steps in dispute resolution. diff
- Ambi, David Gerard, Neutrality, Grunt - Rejected; False or misrepresentated allegations, try earlier steps in dispute resolution. diff
- Radicalsubversiv, Rhobite and 172 - Rejected; Not enough evidence, nothing worthy of arbitration. diff
- 82.124.1.82/Irismeister - Rejected; Covered by current ban. diff
- Robert the Bruce - Rejected, see /Robert the Bruce old. diff
- Gzornenplatz - Rejected; Content dispute that is already enforceable from prior decree. diff
- Vfp15 vs Noisy, Aaarrrggh and Adraeus - Rejected; Content dispute, try earlier steps in dispute resolution. diff
2004
October to December
- Jguk - Withdrawn 29 December 2004. diff
- Everyking - Withdrawn 29 December 2004. diff
- Alterego - Rejected 28 December 2004; Try earlier steps in dispute resolution. diff
- Slrubenstein - Rejected 23 December 2004; Cheesedreams is already involved in another case with Slrubenstein. diff
- Arminius and Darrien - Rejected 20 December 2004; Try earlier steps in dispute resolution. diff
- Quadell - Rejected 11 December 2004; Try earlier steps in dispute resolution. diff
- CheeseDreams - Rejected 11 December 2004; Make requests precise, clear, and focussed. diff
- UninvitedCompany - Rejected 28 November 2004; Our temporary injunction holds. diff
- John69 - Rejected 16 November 2004; Content dispute. Text archived at user talk:John69 diff
- Jayjg - Rejected 11 November 2004; Isolated event, not a pattern of wrongful actions. diff
- Aranel - Rejected 4 November 2004; Try earlier steps in dispute resolution first. diff
- RickK - Rejected 4 November 2004; No evidence of wrongdoing. diff
- Chuck_F, 203.112.19.195 and 210.142.29.125 - Rejected 31 October 2004; Consolidated with /Reithy. diff
- Request to re-open Anthony DiPierro - Rejected 27 October 2004; See discussion at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Anthony DiPierro, actions already enforceable. diff
- VeryVerily vs Gzornenplatz - Rejected 7 October 2004; Try earlier steps in dispute resolution. diff
July to September
- Mintguy - Rejected 27 September 2004; Try earlier steps in dispute resolution. diff
- Gene Poole vs. Gzornenplatz - Rejected 15 September 2004; Try earlier steps in dispute resolution. diff
- Emsworth vs. Xed - Rejected 13 September 2004; Case unworthy of arbitration. diff
- Xed vs. Jimbo Wales - Rejected 10 September 2004; Lack of jurisidiction over Jimbo, private email, lack of initial litigant's involvment, and various other reasons. diff
- VeryVerily - Rejected 30 August 2004; Try earlier steps in dispute resolution. diff
- Tim Starling - Rejected 19 August 2004; Tim's page endorsed by Jimbo and others per discussion on the mailing list. diff
- Guanaco and MyRedDice vs Lir - Rejected 14 August 2004; Trivial complaint. diff
- User:JRR Trollkien 2 - Rejected 12 August 2004; Inconclusive deadlock: 3 votes to reject, none to accept. User is a reincarnaion of a previous account. Archived at User talk:JRR Trollkien. diff
- Sam Spade vs. 172 - Rejected 10 August 2004; Try earlier steps in dispute resolution. diff
- Guanaco and Lir (IRC blocking claims) - Rejected 9 August 2004; Either a lack of jurisdiction (the IRC channels are not official) or a failure to follow earlier steps.diff
- Mike Storm - Rejected 9 August 2004; Try earlier steps in dispute resolution. diff
- RickK - Rejected 9 August 2004; Referred to the Mediation Committee. diff
- Raul654 vs Anthony DiPierro - Withdrawn 30 July 2004 after agreement of both parties (see standing order). diff1 diff2
- Sam Spade vs. AndyL - Withdrawn 28 July 2004. diff
- Sam Spade vs. Danny - Withdrawn 28 July 2004. diff1 diff2
- Simonides vs. "everyone" - Rejected 23 July 2004; Referred to the Mediation Committee. diff
- WikiUser vs. unspecified others - Rejected 23 July 2004 due to lack of a specific request. diff
- 172 vs. VeryVerily - Withdrawn 15 July 2004. diff
April to June
- Cheng v. Anonymous and others - Rejected 24 June 2004; Refer to wikipedia:username for name change policy. For content disputes, try earlier steps in dispute resolution. Discussion moved to User talk:Nathan w cheng. diff
- Avala vs various users - Rejected 20 May 2004; Try previous steps in dispute resolution. Discussion moved to User talk:Avala. diff
- Wheeler vs 172 - Rejected 26 April 2004; Try earlier steps in dispute resolution. Discussion moved to user talk:WHEELER. diff
February to March
- Matter of Hephaestos - Rejected 26 February 2004; due to lack of community desire or allegations. Case referred by Jimbo 19 February 2004. Discussion moved to Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Hephaestos. diff