Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log/2018

This is the central log for all sanctions issued pursuant to an Arbitration Committee contentious topics remedy in 2018 as well as any appeals or modifications made to sanctions issued in 2018.

The required information is the user or page the sanction is being applied to, enforcing administrator, date, nature of sanction, including expiry date (if applicable), basis or context (such as link to AE request), and a diff of the user notification (if applicable).

Yearly logs
Quick links

2018

[edit]
  • Andrevan is topic banned for three months from edits about, and all pages related to, post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, broadly construed. The only exception to this is commenting at any potential ArbCom case or case request in which they are a named party. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:08, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
~Awilley (talk) 02:39, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The following list of articles have talk page sanctions templates and edit notices with the 1RR and Consensus-required restrictions, but I could not find corresponding entries in this log (searched back to 2015). I am assuming the administrators who placed the sanctions and created the edit notice templates simply forgot to make a log entry here. (Easy to forget, done it myself.) I am linking the pages here for reference, along with the name of the admin who created the edit notice.
~Awilley (talk) 17:13, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
~Awilley (talk) 01:40, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Discretionary sanctions (1RR and Consensus Required) are removed from the following 26 pages. Sanctions were originally placed by User:Coffee (now retired). These pages for the most part have low edit volume and no recent disputes.
Note that this is allowed per Special:Permalink/873620431#Amendment to the standard provision for appeals and modifications ~Awilley (talk) 20:50, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ryan Zinke is placed under 1RR and consensus required. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:16, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Discretionary sanctions have been lightened on 53 articles originally sanctioned by User:Coffee. The rule known as "Consensus required" has been replaced by an original rule called "Enforced BRD". The current text of the new rule is as follows: Enforced BRD: If an edit you make is challenged by reversion you must discuss the issue on the article talk page and wait 24 hours (from the time of the original edit) before reinstating your edit. Partial reverts/reinstatements that reasonably address objections of other editors are preferable to wholesale reverts." This sanction is in addition to the WP:1RR already in place on the articles. Articles affected by this change are:
Note that because this is a new sanction that has never been used before I will be closely monitoring the above articles and will modify/remove the sanction or replace consensus required to articles if I see that things aren't working. ~Awilley (talk) 02:05, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Blocked indefinitely (first year under discretionary sanctions) for violating editing restrictions. Any topic ban appeal may now not be launched sooner than one year after any unblock occurs. [44] --NeilN talk to me 20:42, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Users

[edit]

Pages

[edit]
  • not to personalize disputes or to use inflammatory language ("comment on the content, not the contributor");
  • not to impede the formation of consensus by being too bold with talk page actions (specifically, they should not take it upon themselves to maintain or "clerk" any discussions);
  • not to impede the formation of consensus by repeatedly making the same points;
  • to acknowledge consensus can change and having external events bring increased scrutiny and change to potential walled gardens of articles can be beneficial and should not be ridiculed. [68] --NeilN talk to me 23:46, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Topic ban changed to following restrictions: 1) Not remove any WP:G5 tags from WP:ARBIPA articles 2) Observe WP:1RR with autoconfirmed editors on WP:ARBIPA topics 3) Ensure the sources he's using fully and accurately back up the content he's proposing. He will be required to produce the necessary excerpts from sources if challenged by an experienced editor 4) Take care not to misrepresent the validity or reliability of a source. Failure to abide by any one or more of these conditions may result in an immediate topic ban or block. [72] --NeilN talk to me 01:16, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restrictions reduced to not removing any WP:G5 tags from WP:ARBIPA articles for remainder of sanctions (six months from original change). --NeilN talk to me 16:06, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Amended / clarified as applying to intersectional articles only. Guy (Help!) 23:16, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
User was blocked for one month, on 2018-02-06. This was initially a longer block, but discussion at WP:ANI (currently, here) showed a consensus to shorten the block. The 1 year topic ban restarts on completion of the block and thus, ends on 2019-03-06. --Yamla (talk) 20:06, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Article/topic level restrictions

[edit]

Extended confirmed protections

[edit]

Miscellaneous decisions

[edit]

Use this section to record the enforcement of ArbCom decisions not made as part of a case. For example, unblock conditions where the editor wasn't banned in a case.