中国钢铁业完胜美337调查案
| Wikipedia Arbitration |
|---|
 |
|
|
| Track related changes |
This noticeboard is for announcements and statements made by the Arbitration Committee. Only members of the Arbitration Committee or the Committee's Clerks may post on this page, but all editors are encouraged to comment on the talk page.
Change to the CheckUser team, July 2025
The Arbitration Committee acknowledges the resignation of ST47 (talk · contribs) from the CheckUser team and thanks them for their service.
On behalf of the Committee, Sdrqaz (talk) 00:58, 8 July 2025 (UTC)
This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:
- South Asia (WP:CT/SA) is designated a contentious topic. The topic area is specifically defined as
All pages related to the region of South Asia (India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Nepal), broadly construed, including but not limited to history, politics, ethnicity, and social groups.
- The contentious topic designations for Sri Lanka (SL) and India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan (IPA) are folded into this new contentious topic.
- The community-authorized general sanctions regarding South Asian social groups (GS/CASTE) are rescinded and folded into this new contentious topic.
- All sanctions previously imposed under SL, IPA, and GS/CASTE remain in force. In place of the original appeals rules for GS/CASTE, they may be modified or appealed under the same terms as Wikipedia:Contentious topics § Appeals and amendments. Users appealing such a legacy sanction should list "GS/CASTE" as the mechanism they were sanctioned under.
- Editors aware of the previous contentious topic or general sanction designations are not automatically presumed to be aware of the expanded scope, but may still be sanctioned within a subtopic of which they were previously considered aware. This does not invalidate any other reason why an editor might be aware of the expanded scope. Administrators are reminded that they may issue logged warnings even to unaware editors.
- Given the broad scope of this contentious topic designation, admins are encouraged to use targeted sanctions, such as topic bans from specific subtopics, before banning an editor from the area entirely.
- The topic of Indian military history is placed under the extended-confirmed restriction.
- WP:GSCASTE is placed under the extended-confirmed restriction.
- Administrators are permitted to preemptively protect articles covered by WP:GSCASTE when there is a reasonable belief that they will be the target of disruption.
- A consensus of admins at WP:AE may extend WP:ECR to subtopics of WP:ARBIPA if such a sanction is necessary to prevent disruption. Such extensions must be of a limited duration, not to exceed one year.
- Uninvolved administrators are encouraged to monitor the articles covered by contentious topic designation in the original India-Pakistan case to ensure compliance. To assist in this, administrators are reminded that:
- Accounts with a clear shared agenda may be blocked if they violate the sockpuppetry policy or any other applicable policy;
- Accounts whose primary purpose is disruption, violating the policy on biographies of living persons, or making personal attacks may be blocked indefinitely;
- There are special provisions in place to deal with editors who violate the BLP policy;
- Administrators may act on clear BLP violations with page protections, blocks, or warnings even if they have edited the article themselves or are otherwise involved;
- The contentious topics procedure permits full and semi-page protections, including use of pending changes where warranted, and – once an editor has become aware of the contentious topic designation – any other appropriate remedy may be issued without further warning.
- Abhishek0831996 (talk · contribs), Ekdalian (talk · contribs), and Extorc (talk · contribs) are admonished for their behavior in the topic of Indian military history and related caste issues.
- AlvaKedak (talk · contribs), Akshaypatill (talk · contribs), Capitals00 (talk · contribs), Koshuri Sultan (talk · contribs), and Shakakarta (talk · contribs) are indefinitely topic banned from Indian military history and the history of castes in India, broadly construed. These restrictions may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of these remedies, and every twelve months thereafter.
- Dympies (talk · contribs) is reminded to avoid breaches, even minor, of their topic ban.
- Administrators are reminded that, when possible, topic bans should only be as broad as necessary to stop disruption. Some possible subtopics related to WP:ARBIPA are:
- Specific time periods in Indian history, such as before or after the establishment of the British Raj or before or after the foundation of the Republic of India
- Human activity in India
- Indian entertainment, generally or in a specific language
- Indian political, ethnic, religious, and caste topics
- Hindu nationalism and opposition thereto
- India–Pakistan relations
- Indian WP:BLPs or biographies
Remedies that refer to WP:GSCASTE apply to social groups, explicitly including caste associations and political parties related to India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Nepal
, even though GSCASTE was rescinded and folded into the contentious topic designation of South Asia.
For the Arbitration Committee, HouseBlaster (talk ? he/they) 01:01, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
Changes to the functionaries team, July 2025
At their request, the permissions of the following four editors are removed:
- Alison (talk · contribs) – Checkuser
- Bradv (talk · contribs) – Checkuser & Oversight
- Joe Roe (talk · contribs) – Checkuser
- RickinBaltimore (talk · contribs) – Checkuser & Oversight
The Arbitration Committee sincerely thanks each of these editors for their many years of service as functionaries in these roles.
For the Arbitration Committee,
Daniel (talk) 00:10, 31 July 2025 (UTC)
Announcement regarding use of checkuser by the Wikimedia Foundation
In May 2025, the Arbitration Committee became aware of a mass use of the checkuser tool on the English Wikipedia by an employee of the Wikimedia Foundation and contacted the WMF with our concerns about the checks. The Foundation confidentially disclosed the reason for the checks to the Committee and immediately began an internal investigation of the tool use and development of a plan to prevent similar mass checkuser tool uses in the future.
In July, the Foundation outlined their plan to prevent such actions happening again, including localized CU training for Foundation investigators and correct use of the reason field in the checkuser tool. They will also inform the Arbitration Committee of any future use of the checkuser tool on the English Wikipedia that involves more than ten actions. The Foundation confirmed to us that the data gathered through the checks was not shared and has been destroyed. It should be noted that – as the platform operator – the Foundation's use of the checkuser tool is governed by their legal department, not by the local or global checkuser policy.
Due to the access to nonpublic personal data policy, the Committee is limited in what it can reveal about the nature of the checks, those checked, and the results of those checks. We apologise for the vague nature of much of this statement as we try to navigate our obligations under the personal data policy and provide transparency to the community.
For the Arbitration Committee, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:39, 31 July 2025 (UTC)