This is the central log for all sanctions issued pursuant to an Arbitration Committee contentious topics remedy in 2015 as well as any appeals or modifications made to sanctions issued in 2015.
The required information is the user or page the sanction is being applied to, enforcing administrator, date, nature of sanction, including expiry date (if applicable), basis or context (such as link to AE request), and a diff of the user notification (if applicable).
“
All sanctions and page restrictions must be logged by the administrator who applied the sanction or page restriction at Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log. Whenever a sanction or page restriction is appealed or modified, the administrator amending it must append a note recording the amendment to the original log entry.
To be valid, sanctions must be clearly and unambiguously labelled as an arbitration enforcement action (such as with "arbitration enforcement", "arb enforcement", "AE" or "WP:AE" in the Wikipedia log entry or the edit summary). If a sanction has been logged as an arbitration enforcement action but has not been clearly labelled as an arbitration enforcement action any uninvolved administrator may amend the sanction (for example, a null edit or reblocking with the same settings) on behalf of the original administrator. Labelling a sanction which has been logged does not make the administrator who added the label the "enforcing administrator" unless there is confusion as to who intended the sanction be arbitration enforcement.
A central log of all page restrictions and sanctions (including blocks, bans, page protections or other restrictions) placed as arbitration enforcement (including contentious topic restrictions) is to be maintained by the Committee and its clerks at Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log.
Ninetoyadome is under a one-revert-per-week restriction, supervised editing (probation) and civility supervision (civility parole) (diff) placed by Dougweller 23 March 2014. Zad6804:21, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
C1cada is topic-banned for six months — ending 00:00, 6 November 2015 (UTC) — from all pages dealing with the Armenian Genocide, per discussion at WP:AE (here). — Richwales(no relation to Jimbo)04:18, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Darkfrog24 (talk·contribs), the other party in the dispute, was given an administrative warning and new ((Ds/alert))[6]: "I have to say that I would have imposed the same [TBan] on you for your edit-warring, if it hadn't been for the purely procedural reason that I can't find evidence you have been formally notified of the discretionary sanctions regime for WP:MOS ... Fut.Perf.☼ 08:38, 6 September 2015 (UTC)"
A1candidate (talk·contribs) is restricted to WP:0RR on the acupuncture article. Additionally, A1candidate is restricted to WP:1RR on articles related to alternative medicine. Gaming these rules, engaging in Battleground behavior, WP:IDHT behavior, or focusing on contributors over content will result in this being extended to a complete topic ban. Sanctions will expire one year from today or (with administrative review) one year from the most recent 0RR or 1RR violation, whichever comes last. diff~Adjwilley (talk)07:34, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
QuackGuru (talk·contribs) is restricted to WP:0RR on the acupuncture page andtopic banned from Acupuncture and restricted toWP:1RR on pages related to alternative medicine. Updates to references and citations are specifically allowed, so long as they are uncontroversial.Battleground, Tendentious or Gaming behavior may result in a complete topic ban, as will focusing on contributors over content or making accusations against other editors. To successfully appeal these restrictions, QuackGuru must: 1.) demonstrate a history of collaborative editing, building and respecting consensus; 2.) not violate the sanctions for a reasonable amount of time before the appeal; 3.) demonstrate they see Wikipedia as an encyclopedia rather than a platform for exposing quackery. diff~Adjwilley (talk)07:59, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
CFCF was given a final warning to avoid undoing edits that have consensus in this AE discussion. The text of the warning was CFCF is formally warned that any further instances of reverting other users enacting a consensus will result in sanctions. They are reminded that discussion not reverting is the correct way to resolve a dispute. They should note that any edit that undoes another user's edit is a revert and are reminded that 1RR or not, undoing a consensus change is clear disruptionSpartazHumbug!08:50, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Brianna Wu semi-protected indefinitely due to repeated BLP violations.[20] Of note, consideration may need to be given to also semi-protecting the talk page due to similar BLP violations. Risker (talk) 04:21, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
YellowSandals cautioned against making personally directed comments on article talk pages (on 02 January 2015) by HJ Mitchell.
Loganmac cautioned against making personally directed comments or accusing others of bias on article talk pages (on 02 January 2015) by HJ Mitchell.
Ryulong prohibited from commenting on Wikipedia with regards to any accounts owned or alleged to be owned by Wikipedia editors on non-Wikimedia websites or the activities of such accounts as concern the GamerGate controversy. Expires upon closure of WP:ARBGG arbitration case, imposed by HJ Mitchell.
Ksolway indefinitely topic banned from editing any article or making any comment regarding GamerGate anywhere on Wikipedia (on 02 January 2015) by HJ Mitchell.
MarkBernstein blocked for a month (on 24 January 2015) for outright violation of topic ban and because most edits since the topic ban have been skirting it; warned that further violations will result in a one-year block by HJ Mitchell
Skyrock84 (talk·contribs) blocked (by me) indef as an "obvious GamerGate-related sleeper sock" 23 January 2015, under the old community sanctions. Block rescinded and replaced with a 1-year topic ban (by me) on 30 January 2015 under the new ArbCom sanctions. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:26, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
09I500 (talk·contribs) indefinitely topic-banned from any article or discussion relating to any gender-related dispute or controversy", explicitly including "GamerGate, any and all content to do with rape, and any gender- or sexuality-related content on articles such as 4chan", for edit-warring and exhibiting a battleground mentality. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:37, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
ArmyLine (talk·contribs) blocked 1 year (concurrent with indefinite normal admin block) after repeated breaches of prior topic ban, for a pattern of activities that concentrated entirely on casting aspersions and raising specious complaints against other users in the area of conflict. Fut.Perf.☼09:53, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ranze (talk·contribs) Standard GG topic ban for 12 months. "Any editor subject to a topic-ban in this decision is indefinitely prohibited from making any edit about, and from editing any page relating to, (a) Gamergate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed." Gamaliel (talk) 16:17, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sanction lifted per agreement to the condition that CoS will, when communicating about the topic of Gamergate, broadly construed, commit to adhering to the guidelines at WP:TPG, and in particular will commit to using plain, straightforward communication about the article content and sourcing. Zad6803:55, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Handpolk (talk·contribs), standard indefinite topic ban per content and broad consensus in [this ANI thread]. Per the ANI outcome they are invited to appeal the topic ban when they a) reach the 500 edit threshold through means other than the overuse of repetitive minor edits, and b) can demonstrate that their intentions are to provide new and reliable information for the article(s) and/or to legitimately seek consensus for rewording existing material, having considered past talkpage discussions and consensus outcomes. -- Euryalus (talk) 03:39, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
TheRedPenOfDoom (talk·contribs) indefinitely topic-banned "from all edits about, and all pages related to, (a) GamerGate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed." They may appeal after 6 months. Per this AE request. Zad6821:06, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Vordrak (talk·contribs) is banned indefinitely from interacting with User:MarkBernstein, as a one-way WP:IBAN, with the exception that Vordrak may start standard noticeboard discussions (such as at WP:ANI or WP:COIN) regarding Mark and participate in the discussions Vordrak starts. In particular, Vordrak may not participate in discussions regarding Mark that Vordrak did not start, nor may Vordrak bring up the topic of Mark in other locations such as Talk pages, and Vordrak may not discuss any off-Wikipedia content regarding Mark. Zad6823:37, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
BenMcLean (talk·contribs) is topic-banned with the standard GG topic ban until 19 March 2016. Any uninvolved administrator may lift this topic ban without my consent if he is able to demonstrate to the administrator an understanding of the difference between appropriate and inappropriate behavior towards other editors and of proper talk page decorum. Gamaliel (talk) 18:01, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Cannot make any edit (apart from those which are blatantly uncontroversial) to this article without first proposing it on the talk page for at least 24 hours and having a consensus in support of the change.
The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:
In May 2015 administrator Zad68 imposed extended confirmed protection of Talk:Gamergate controversy as a discretionary sanction in response to this AE request. The Arbitration Committee notes that Zad68 is currently inactive so the sanction cannot be modified without consensus or Committee action. Therefore the Committee lifts the discretionary sanction on Talk:Gamergate controversy (not the article) to allow the community to modify the protection level in accordance with the Wikipedia:Protection policy.
TruthIsDivine (talk·contribs) is indefinitely topic banned from all edits regarding governmental regulation of firearm ownership; the social, historical and political context of such regulation; and the people and organizations associated with these issues [37]Gamaliel (talk) 23:31, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Bolterc (talk·contribs), indefinite topic ban from all edits relating to politics of India and/or Pakistan, after a series of ANI complaints regarding edit-warring and other forms of disruptive editing. Fut.Perf.☼10:34, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A full interaction ban between both users, of indefinite duration, under the same conditions as the earlier one in 2012 ("banned from all interaction, undoing each others edits, making reference to or comment on each other, replying to each other in any discussion, editing each others user talk space, or filing ANI reports about each other for 6 months except to clarify or abolish this interaction ban or to report violations of the interaction ban")
A 12-months topic ban for Timbouctou from all topics related to Croatia
A 6-months topic ban for Director on the narrower topic area of Croatian constitutional continuity and related issues of Croatian officeholders. Fut.Perf.☼09:08, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Leon Uris protected 7 days due to slow edit war; also atypically reverted most recent edit a while later when an editor to the page brought it to my attention that the edit had been made by a less-than-30/500 user. --slakr\ talk /00:31, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
MarioMarco2009 is indefinitely topic-banned from the subject of Homeopathy, broadly construed, following ANI notification. [54]Drmies (talk) 21:30, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]