Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/A Man In Black

Case Opened on 17:06, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
Case Closed on 23:54, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Watchlist all case pages: 1, 2, 3, 4

Please do not edit this page directly unless you are an Arbitrator or a Committee clerk Statements on this page are original comments provided when the Committee was initially requested to Arbitrate this page (at Requests for arbitration), and serve as opening statements; as such, they should not be altered. Evidence for this case is at /Evidence.

Suggested principles, findings, and remedies were posted at /Workshop. That page may also be used for general comments on the evidence. The Arbitrators voted on a final decision in the case at /Proposed decision.

Editors may add to the #Log of blocks, bans, and restrictions as needed, but this page should not be edited otherwise. Please raise any questions at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Requests for clarification, and report violations of this decision at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement.

Involved parties

• A Man In Black (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Rootology (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Ikip (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (Added June 1)

Requests for comment

• None.

Statement by Rootology

A Man In Black was blocked today for his 12th incident of blatant edit warring since his 2005 successful RFA. He has an extensive and long-term history of edit warring, which is unbecoming of an administrator. Reviewing his block log, which I never actually noticed before tonight, I count 12 valid blocks imposed by other administrators due to his ongoing misbehavior:

1. July 17, 2006: 3RR; 2. December 30, 2006: 3RR; 3. February 9, 2007: 3RR; 4. February 28, 2007: 3RR; 5. March 5, 2007: 3RR; 6. March 9, 2007: 3RR; 7. March 12, 2007: 3RR; 8. March 30, 2007: 3RR; 9. November 19, 2007: edit warring; 10. September 13, 2008: 3RR; 11. February 5, 2009: 3RR; 12. May 20, 2009: 3RR.

He routinely does this (view his block log), and it is an ongoing pattern. Any non-admin warring this often would, at the very least, be any of the following:

1. Indefinitely blocked
2. Forced to take a 0RR or 1RR restriction from the community or Arbitration Committee
3. Be facing some edit restrictions.

In the wake of this latest block, as is often this user's general tone, he is unrelenting in his positions and views, which is at the least unhelpful and likely not acceptable administrative behavior by modern 2009 Wikipedia standards. This one block sequence in particular is troubling, and basically on the surface seems to encapsulate how he views certain things:

1. 09:31, March 30, 2007 A Man In Black (talk | contribs | block) unblocked "A Man In Black (talk | contribs)" ‎ (Leaving)
2. 09:04, March 30, 2007 Dominic (talk | contribs | block) blocked A Man In Black (talk | contribs) (anon. only) with an expiry time of 48 hours ‎ (3RR at Template:Grand Theft Auto games, prior history of blocks for edit warring (see user talk page)) (unblock | change block)

This user in this instance was edit warring with User:Ikip, his principle opponent on the whole inclusion/deletion war, who he had previously blocked on April 26, twenty three days ago, as detailed here for alleged canvassing about the Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron, which AMiB also put up for MFD at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron (4th nomination). AMiB also created User:A Man In Black/Let's tape Ikip up in a box and mail him to the moon, and Template:AfD/Tagged, made again by Ikip, which AMiB deleted not once but twice in two days claiming WP:POINT. Others can supply other more recent evidence of his edit warring at recent RFCs. In short, this is an ongoing pattern that shows no signs of stopping now over the course of years. I ask the Committee to:

1. Review AMiB's status and standing as an administrator in light of this ongoing history, and committment to edit warring and disruption.
2. Review AMiB's actions of using admin tools in a dispute (the block of Ikip).
3. Should AMiB retain his tools, face a permanent restriction of their use in regards to Ikip.
4. Should AMiB retain his tools, face a permanent restriction of their use in regards to anything related to our xFD processes, "broadly construed", if evidence is presented of misuse related to this (which seems often hinted at, but I can't find at a quick glance).
5. Strongly consider a 0RR or 1RR permanent restriction on him on all parts of Wikipedia, enforceable by block by uninvolved administrators.

Thanks. rootology (C)(T) 05:17, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Quick answers

1. John: That is common for placement of Article FAQs, location-wise, that I've seen. rootology (C)(T) 16:18, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
2. Bainer: I won't have time to look myself for a day or two, but I suspect others are reviewing this indepth right now. A quick look however turns up Template:AfD/Tagged, made again by Ikip, which AMiB deleted not once but twice in two days claiming WP:POINT. That's 3x now that he--deeply involved in the metawars of AFD with Ikip--used his tools in regards to Ikip. rootology (C)(T) 16:18, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
3. MZMcBride, Stifle, Ncmvocalist: As Casliber said, any RFC over any of these people is going to fall apart into partisan sqawking like the various "Characters" things with people like TTN & Pixelface before, on the 1st generation of these wars. These people are wholly entrenched, and the issue is AMiB's ongoing patterns of behavior which are frankly unbecoming of an administrator--he's argumentative, intractable, prone by clear evidence to edit war, used his tools repeatedly vs. a user he is involved with (Ikip) and then when finally blocked for 3RR again for 9 days for the latest incident, promptly blamed Ikip for the whole thing on his talk page. If a Checkuser/Oversight member was removed of his status for edit warring over years without a block in place, as seen here, then surely someone is unfit to be an administrator having picked up 12 blocks for edit warring since becoming an admin. Administrator is not some special rank and priviledge that gives us any more leeway on bad behavior--if some non-admin here since 2005 as I have been edit warred and was blocked 3 days, and I did the same thing in similar to matching circumstances, I damned well better pick up a 3 day block myself--or any other admin who did so, up to and including Jimmy--or our entire system of governance is a farce. rootology (C)(T) 16:18, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
4. Roger: AMiB does do some infrequent valid admin work, but his block record is unbecoming of an admin, especially as all of that is post-RFA. A hard 0RR or 1RR per week with standard incrementing block enforcement to force discussion over warring, or a broadly construed topic-ban with block enforcement on some combination of: a) *fD related areas; b) Article Rescue Squadron specifically; c) User:Ikip; d) fiction topics would probably eliminate any disruption (but would need a full case with evidence to review). It seems looking quickly that those are the main areas that get AMiB in hot water. If possible, I'd say just the hard block-enforced 0RR or 1RR per week would be fine at the least, but I defer to the AC's collective wisdom. rootology (C)(T) 17:56, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Request by Rootology, AMiB unblock & Information request

1. Since we're at 11 accepts and the case will be opening, can we get him unblocked with the condition that until the 9 days expire he limit himself to editing the RFAR pages, his own user space to draft evidence, and not use admin tools till the 9 are up? rootology/equality 15:31, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

2. Will we be able to refer to the private evidence at least in general terms (the specific policy violation) when presented our own evidence and workshop proposals? rootology/equality 15:52, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Statement by A Man In Black

The first I've heard of Rootology's (rather scattered) objections to me or my conduct is this RFAr. His second post on my talk page ever was notifying me of this RFAr. If he's worried about my editing habits or my administrative actions, there are more-appropriate venues and less adversarial ways to engage me other than going first to RFAr and demanding I be deadminned. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 05:56, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Preliminary decisions

Arbitrators' opinions on hearing this matter (11/0/2/3)

• Accept  Roger Davies ^talk 07:07, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

• Questions: (Q1) For a cursory glance at the logs, this editor does not appear to use the tools much. What does he need them for? I'd appreciate responses (with some numbers) from both sides of the debate. (Q2) As a further thought, do the parties think this could be resolved with a 1RR restriction? I'm particularly interested in hearing from A Man in Black on this.  Roger Davies ^talk 07:08, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

• Question: Could someone explain why Wikipedia talk:Article Rescue Squadron/FAQ is in namespace "Wikipedia talk" (5) instead of "Wikipedia" (4)? John Vandenberg ^(chat) 07:52, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Accept. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 23:46, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
  • In regards to Rootology's questions, 1) can a clerk please talk with AMiB about an unblock so he can participate in this case, and 2) if anyone is not sure whether evidence can be publicly posted due to privacy concerns, either talk to the person whose privacy may be affected, or send it to arbcom-l and we will help with that decision - if it needs to stay private, we may advise that a public note can be made to describe it in a manner that doesnt affect privacy. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 16:35, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
• recused - non-impartial. Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:59, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
• Accept. Blocks should give an user ample notice that their conduct is problematic, especially if the user is a long time contributor and an administrator. This situation needs to be addressed in a way that gives a clearly decisive finding and remedy. The best outcome will be from an ArbCom case. FloNight♥♥♥ 12:27, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Private information received by ArbCom by email. AMIB has been notified and is aware of the concerns. FloNight♥♥♥ 18:48, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
• Accept per FloNight. Wizardman 14:09, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
• Question: without turning this into an evidence page, are there any instances of tool usage that are of concern apart from the Ikip block? --bainer (talk) 14:40, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Accept based on information provided here and to the Committee by email. --bainer (talk) 04:20, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
• Awaiting answers to the questions posed by my colleagues. I would also welcome a more detailed statement from A Man In Black. In that regard, unless there is a serious objection, I am prepared to unblock him for the limited purpose of allowing him to edit this page (and the case pages, if the request is accepted). Disclosure: I have an entry in A Man In Black's block log; it is two years old, and I will not be recusing based upon it, but thought I should mention it. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:26, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
• Recuse - I had commented on the most recent block of A Man in Black prior to this request being initiated. Risker (talk) 19:00, 20 May 2009 (UTC) Note: Carcharoth was correct in removing my double vote; I was away for a few days and forgot that I had already recused.. Risker (talk) 13:08, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
• Accept. Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 03:23, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
• Recuse - extended involvement in the ANI thread concerning AMIB and Jtrainor. Carcharoth (talk) 08:18, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
• Accept. While I don't necessarily accept the theory that a long history of blocks of an admin makes a prima facie argument for accepting a case, the evidence submitted by Ikip certainly does. Per Flonight the prolonged history here is troubling. Sam Blacketer (talk) 08:30, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
• Accept. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:17, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
• Accept; I also tend to agree that an RfCU is unlikely to be productive given the volatility of the incipient dispute that led to those incidents and the (regrettable) party lines that have been drawn. — Coren ^(talk) 01:27, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
• Accept. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 17:07, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Final decision

All numbering based on /Proposed decision, where vote counts and comments are also available.

Principles

Editor conduct

1) 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.

Passed 10 to 0 on 19:19, 27 June 2009 (UTC).

Editorial process

2) 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.

Passed 10 to 0 on 19:19, 27 June 2009 (UTC).

Edit warring

3) 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.

Passed 10 to 0 on 19:19, 27 June 2009 (UTC).

Good faith and disruption

4) Inappropriate behavior driven by good intentions is still inappropriate. Editors acting in good faith may still be sanctioned when their actions are disruptive.

Passed 10 to 0 on 19:19, 27 June 2009 (UTC).

Recidivism

5) 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.

Passed 10 to 0 on 19:19, 27 June 2009 (UTC).

Administrators

6) 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.

Passed 10 to 0 on 19:19, 27 June 2009 (UTC).

Disruption by administrators

7) 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.

Passed 10 to 0 on 19:19, 27 June 2009 (UTC).

Administrators involved in disputes

7A) 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.

Passed 9 to 0 on 19:19, 27 June 2009 (UTC).

Baiting

8) 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.

Passed 10 to 0 on 19:19, 27 June 2009 (UTC).

Canvassing

9) 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.

Passed 9 to 0 (with 1 abstention) on 19:19, 27 June 2009 (UTC).

Arbitration in dispute resolution

10) 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.

Passed 5 to 2 (with 3 abstentions) on 19:19, 27 June 2009 (UTC).

Findings of fact

A Man In Black’s edit-warring and block log

1) A Man In Black (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), an administrator, has been blocked approximately 12 times for edit warring since his request for adminship in October 2005.[1]

Passed 10 to 0 on 19:29, 27 June 2009 (UTC).

Disputes between A Man In Black and Ikip

2.1) A Man In Black and Ikip (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) have been involved in a series of disputes involving the Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron. Their total contributions have intersected about 20% of the time as of May 23, including 26 edits by A Man In Black to Ikip’s talk page. See evidence.

Passed 8 to 0 (with 1 abstention) on 19:29, 27 June 2009 (UTC).

A Man In Black’s block of Ikip

3.1) On April 26, A Man In Black blocked Ikip for canvassing in connection with the pending AfD of a fictional television character. A Man In Black then reported his block of Ikip on the administrators' noticeboard and invited review. The resulting discussion resulted in an unblock. [2] In view of their past history, A Man In Black should not have blocked Ikip but, if he had a concern, should have raised it on ANI for attention by other administrators rather than carry out the block himself.

Passed 8 to 1 (with 1 abstention) on 19:29, 27 June 2009 (UTC).

A Man in Black's blocks of Jtrainor and MalikCarr

3A) In October and November 2008, A Man in Black blocked both Jtrainor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and MalikCarr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) while in content disputes with them relating to the infobox Template:Infobox Mobile Suit and its use in a number of articles:

1. On 25 October, A Man in Black removed a number of parameters from the infobox, with the edit summary "Dumping a bunch of unencyclopedic in-universe detail..." A Man in Black then proceeded to edit war with TheFarix (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Jtrainor over his changes (history).
2. On 29 October, A Man in Black edited the Gundam (mobile suit) article, to remove several parameters from the instance of Infobox Mobile Suit transcluded there, with the edit summary "Copyvio from http://www.gundamofficial.com/worlds/uc/msg/mechanics/ms_gundam.html" (a page on the "GundamOfficial" site). A Man in Black then edit warred with Jtrainor and Kyaa the Catlord (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) over these changes (history).
3. Also on 29 October, A Man in Black edited the MSN-03 Jagd Doga article to again remove parameters from the infobox, with the edit summary "rm blatant copyvio from http://www.gundamofficial.com/worlds/uc/cca/mechanics/ms_jagdgyunei.html" (a page on the "GundamOfficial" site). He then tagged the article with the {{primarysources}} template, and then edit warred with Jtrainor and MalikCarr over these changes (history).
4. A Man in Black was aware that the GundamOfficial site was the source of the information in the infobox as early as November 2007 ([3]).
5. The same users had been involved in a similar edit war in 2007 ([4], [5], [6]) that ultimately ended in a request for mediation.
6. On 1 November, A Man in Black blocked Jtrainor for 24 hours with the action summary "Replacing copyvio into articles". On 2 November, A Man in Black blocked MalikCarr for 24 hours with the action summary "Trying to force copyvio into MSN-03 Jagd Doga". The blocks were discussed at the administrators' incidents noticeboard.
7. It was not appropriate for A Man in Black to have performed the two blocks, given his substantial prior history of conflict with the two users blocked, and his involvement with the editorial dispute that led to the blocks (both in the immediate context and a year previously).

Passed 8 to 0 on 01:05, 1 July 2009 (UTC).

A Man In Black has engaged in sockpuppetry

4.1) Per private evidence, A Man In Black has abusively edited Wikipedia as an anonymous user, resulting in a medium length block of that IP address. A Man In Black evaded the block by editing as A Man In Black while the IP block was in effect, engaging in the same dispute where the IP was active.

Passed 8 to 1 (with 1 abstention) on 19:29, 27 June 2009 (UTC).

A Man In Black has used his tools inappropriately

5) A Man In Black, despite being involved with Ikip, blocked him, and also twice deleted a template that Ikip had created.[7]

Passed 8 to 0 (with 2 abstentions) on 19:29, 27 June 2009 (UTC).

A Man In Black has a history of edit-warring

6) A Man In Black has a long history of edit-warring during his tenure as an administrator.[8][9][10][11]

Passed 10 to 0 on 19:29, 27 June 2009 (UTC).

Ikip and A Man In Black have edit-warred

7) A Man In Black and Ikip revert-warred over inclusion of the sentence "As an editor who actively supports the deletion of many articles, I object to what Article Rescue Squadron is doing" and a response to it at Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron/FAQ. This was slow-moving edit-warring until May 10. On May 15, A Man In Black removed the wording again [12], sparking an edit-war that lasted from May 15 to 18, involving A Man In Black [13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21], Ikip[22][23][24], and others. The edit-war came to an end when AMIB self-reverted.[25] Thereafter, A Man In Black was blocked and and Ikip was cautioned.[26]

Passed 9 to 0 (with 1 abstention) on 19:29, 27 June 2009 (UTC).

Ikip has engaged in uncivil conduct

8) Ikip has engaged in attacks and uncivil comments towards A Man In Black.[27][28][29]

Passed 5 to 2 (with 3 abstentions) on 19:29, 27 June 2009 (UTC).

Remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

A Man In Black desysopped

1) A Man In Black (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)’s administrator privileges are revoked. He may apply to have them reinstated at any time, either through the usual means or by appeal to the Committee.

Passed 9 to 1 on 19:36, 27 June 2009 (UTC).

A Man in Black topic-banned

2) A Man In Black is topic-banned from the Article Rescue Squadron for one year. Broadly construed, A Man In Black may not contact, interact with, nor comment on in any capacity, from article space to project space, about the Article Rescue Squadron. Should AMiB be found in violation of this, he may be blocked for the duration specified below.

Passed 5 to 2 (with 3 abstentions) on 19:36, 27 June 2009 (UTC).

A Man in Black restricted

4) A Man in Black is subject to an editing restriction for one year. A Man in Black is limited to one revert per page per week (except for undisputable vandalism and BLP violations), and is required to discuss any content reversions on the page's talk page. Should A Man in Black exceed this limit or fail to discuss a content reversion, A Man in Black may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling below

Passed 8 to 0 (with 2 abstentions) on 19:36, 27 June 2009 (UTC).

Ikip warned

5) Ikip (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is warned to refrain from making large-scale edits which may be interpreted as canvassing or making rude comments to users he’s in dispute with.

Passed 6 to 3 (with 1 abstention) on 19:36, 27 June 2009 (UTC).

Enforcement

Enforcement of restrictions

0) Should any user subject to a restriction in this case violate that restriction, that user may be blocked, initially for up to one month, and then with blocks increasing in duration to a maximum of one year.

In accordance with the procedure for the standard enforcement provision adopted 3 May 2014, this provision did not require a vote.

Appeals and modifications

0) Appeals and modifications

This procedure applies to appeals related to, and modifications of, actions taken by administrators to enforce the Committee's remedies. It does not apply to appeals related to the remedies directly enacted by the Committee. Appeals by sanctioned editors Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction and only for a currently active sanction. Requests for modification of page restrictions may be made by any editor. The process has three possible stages (see "Important notes" below). The editor may: ask the enforcing administrator to reconsider their original decision; request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators’ noticeboard ("AN"); and submit a request for amendment at "ARCA". If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email through Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee (or, if email access is revoked, to arbcom-enwikimedia.org). Modifications by administrators No administrator may modify or remove a sanction placed by another administrator without: the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" below). 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. Administrators are free to modify sanctions placed by former administrators – that is, editors who do not have the administrator permission enabled (due to a temporary or permanent relinquishment or desysop) – without regard to the requirements of this section. If an administrator modifies a sanction placed by a former administrator, the administrator who made the modification becomes the "enforcing administrator". If a former administrator regains the tools, the provisions of this section again apply to their unmodified enforcement actions. Important notes: For a request to succeed, either (i) the clear and substantial consensus of (a) uninvolved administrators at AE or (b) uninvolved editors at AN or (ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA is required. If consensus at AE or AN is unclear, the status quo prevails. While asking the enforcing administrator and seeking reviews at AN or AE are not mandatory prior to seeking a decision from the committee, once the committee has reviewed a request, further substantive review at any forum is barred. The sole exception is editors under an active sanction who may still request an easing or removal of the sanction on the grounds that said sanction is no longer needed, but such requests may only be made once every six months, or whatever longer period the committee may specify. These provisions apply only to contentious topics placed by administrators and to blocks placed by administrators to enforce arbitration case decisions. They do not apply to sanctions directly authorised by the committee, and enacted either by arbitrators or by arbitration clerks, or to special functionary blocks of whatever nature. All actions designated as arbitration enforcement actions, including those alleged to be out of process or against existing policy, must first be appealed following arbitration enforcement procedures to establish if such enforcement is inappropriate before the action may be reversed or formally discussed at another venue.

In accordance with the procedure for the standard appeals and modifications provision adopted 3 May 2014, this provision did not require a vote.

Log of blocks, bans, and restrictions

Any block, restriction, ban, or sanction performed under the authorisation of a remedy for this case must be logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log, not here.