Case clerks: AlexandrDmitri ( Talk) & Dougweller ( Talk) Drafting arbitrators: Roger Davies ( Talk) & Jclemens ( Talk)
Wikipedia Arbitration |
---|
|
Track related changes |
Case Opened on 09:26, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
Case Closed on 00:51, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Amended by motion on 02:57, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
Please do not edit this page directly unless you are either 1) an Arbitrator, 2) an Arbitration Clerk, or 3) adding yourself to this case. 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. Any evidence you wish to provide to the Arbitrators should go on the /Evidence subpage.
Arbitrators, the parties, and other editors may suggest proposed principles, findings, and remedies at /Workshop. That page may also be used for general comments on the evidence. Arbitrators will then vote on a final decision in the case at /Proposed decision.
Once the case is closed, 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 remedies at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement.
I am appealing an indefinite ban from Wikipedia by Jimmy Wales. Will Beback accused me of conflict of interest via private email to Jimmy and Arbcom and two other Wikipedia editors on September 8. The email included alleged personal information and a number of demonstrable falsehoods and misrepresentations. Jimmy immediately banned me from all participation in Wikipedia due to my alleged conflict of interest.
The ban was immediate and abrupt, without my being invited to respond, so Jimmy agreed to hear my comments and opened a discussion via email, saying he would investigate the matter. On September 20 he characterized the ban as a “temporary injunction” while he investigated the case. On September 30, in response to my inquiry, he indicated he was going to spend an hour that day and several hours the next day investigating and then would get back to me. On October 12, in response to my inquiry, he kindly apologized for taking so long and said he would be finished with his research within a week.
I’ve not heard from him since. Since Jimmy is obviously very busy and hasn’t followed up with his investigation, I request that Arbcom take this case and examine the matter.
It is my contention that my editing behavior is not in violation of WP:COI. In particular, the ban seems unwarranted given that Arbcom addressed this issue in the TM Arbcom decision of June 2010, saying that an editor with a relationship to the organization isn’t prohibited from editing as long as he or she adheres to Wikipedia policies. [5] The issue was addressed again in a recent RfArb clarification that opened on August 26 and was archived September 12. Seven members of the committee responded, saying that COI isn’t itself sufficient basis for sanction and that it depends on whether edits themselves comply with Wikipedia policies. [6]
Since it is impossible to respond without discussing TimidGuy's RL identity and job, I have sent my response to the ArbCom by email.
1) The Arbitration Committee's duties and responsibilities include:
2) When hearing ban appeals, the Committee may – at its discretion – take evidence afresh and make a new determination. By default, the Committee hears proceedings in public and examines the conduct of all parties. Where significant privacy or harassment issues are involved, the Committee may hold a hearing in private and parties are given a reasonable opportunity to respond to what is said about them before a decision is made. Aspects of the present case relating to privacy and harassment were heard in private.
3) The banning policy states: " Jimbo Wales retains the authority to ban editors".
4) Since this case involves a ban placed by Jimbo Wales, no party in this case may appeal its outcome to Jimbo Wales, per Wikipedia:ARBPOL#Appeal of decisions.
5) When editors request or place sanctions in whatever forum on Wikipedia, the onus is on the editors requesting or placing those sanctions to provide the evidence to prove their claims. Failing to do so may constitute a personal attack. The longstanding "No Personal Attacks" policy states that "serious accusations require serious evidence".
6) Editing with a conflict of interest ("COI") is discouraged but not prohibited. This is because conflicts of interest can lead to violation of policies such as neutral point of view, what Wikipedia is not, and copyright compliance.
7) When investigating possible cases of COI editing, editors must comply fully with the outing policy. Editors repeatedly seeking private information (either via on-wiki questioning or via off-wiki investigations) contribute to a hostile editing environment, which may rise to the level of harassment. Wikipedia's policy against harassment and outing takes precedence over the COI guideline.
8) Editors accused of having a conflict of interest are not required to disclose private information by way of defence.
9) Per policy, "as a matter of … effective discourse, comments should not be personalized. That is, they should be directed at content and actions rather than people." Disparaging an editor or casting aspersions is a personal attack, regardless of the manner in which it is done. The usual exception to this principle is reasonably expressed concerns raised within a legitimate dispute resolution process.
10) It is prohibited by policy to disrupt other editors' enjoyment of Wikipedia by making threats, making repeated unwanted contacts, making repeat personal attacks, engaging in intimidation, or posting personal information. (From: "This Page in a Nutshell", Wikipedia:Harassment)
11) Wikipedia is not a battleground. Prolonged and repetitive use of community processes to perpetuate ideological and/or content disputes is extremely disruptive and creates a toxic environment.
12) Policy states: [while] administrators are not expected to be perfect... 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".
13) In accordance with the Arbitration policies on transparency and confidentiality and admissibility of evidence, cases involving credible allegations of inappropriate on-wiki posting of non-public information will be conducted in a manner designed to minimize the repetition of such information. Evidence of alleged misuse will be communicated to all parties to the case, but the scope of the case and number of parties will be carefully managed to minimize the unnecessary spread of such information, and every effort will be made to avoid publicly reposting such information in the course of a case.
1) This dispute concerns the conduct of two editors - Will Beback ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) and TimidGuy ( talk · contribs) - and has as its broad background the articles in the Transcendental Meditation movement ("TM") category. These articles have been the subject of numerous content disputes in which TimidGuy and Will Beback have been regular adversaries. Along with disputes about sources and verifiability, a recurrent long-running theme has been conflicts of interest.
2) Many issues concerning paid editing, anonymous editing, outing and harassment, are unresolved. Our policies and guidelines are complicated and sometimes contradictory. Investigating, sanctioning and/or exonerating editors on the basis of who they are or what they do in real life is not only controversial but often impossible. Furthermore, extreme cases apart, there is no consensus about the extent that editors may edit articles on topics with which they are personally involved. Hence, of necessity, review must focus primarily on the editing patterns of those editors about whom problems are claimed.
3.1) TimidGuy ( talk · contribs) created the account on 1 September 2006 and has made just under 8000 edits, mostly but not entirely within the TM topic.
3.2) TimidGuy has disclosed that he has a conflict of interest regarding TM. The first instance was on 8 Dec 2006. Other instances include: 31 Mar 2007, 25 Jan 2008, 22 Feb 2010 and 1 Aug 2010.
3.3) On 9 August 2010, TimidGuy was topic-banned at Arbitration Enforcement from TM-related articles for two months. The topic-ban expired on 9 October 2010. A revert restriction was imposed at the same time: this was withdrawn in December 2010.
4.1) Will Beback ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) is a very experienced editor and administrator, having made well over 100,000 edits. He has been an administrator since June 2005.
4.2) Will Beback was admonished in 2005 (then editing as User:Willmcw) and again in 2009. This later admonishment concerned a new religious movement, originating in India and focused on meditation, Prem Rawat. Will Beback was subsequently briefly blocked at Arbitration Enforcement for breaching an editing restriction.
5.1) On 30 August 2011, Will Beback participated in a discussion on Jimmy Wales's talk page about paid editing: [7], [8], [9]. He subsequently emailed Jimmy Wales, on 2 September 2011, copying the committee and others, making various allegations in respect of TimidGuy. Will Beback followed this up, on 8 September 2011, with more detailed allegations. Very shortly afterwards, Jimmy Wales responded by email, site-banning TimidGuy from the English Wikipedia.
5.2a) Analyses by arbitrators of TimidGuy's edits since October 2010, when the two-month topic ban elapsed, do not appear to have detected any significant systemic concerns or apparent advocacy. [10], [11]
5.2b) During the course of the review, evidence was presented which demonstrated that some of TimidGuy's editing did not comply with the reliable sources (medicine) guideline.
5.3) Since the sanctions elapsed, TimidGuy has made at least two edits which are inconsistent with the notion he was engaging in advocacy. In December 2010, he added "negative" material about TM "Contraindications". In February 2011, he removed " favourable" material about TM, because it was improperly sourced to press releases and a blog ("Yikes"). Will Beback was aware of both these edits at the time and commented on them: "Contraindications" response and "Yikes" response.
5.4) Analysis of TimidGuy's contributions since 14 February 2010 shows that the vast majority of his edits are made between 05:00 and 07:00, his local time.
5.5) For this appeal, in addition to the public material, the committee has examined private statements from Will Beback and from TimidGuy. The committee notes that some of the material submitted is unsupported assertion and some is inaccurate and has thus on occasion made its own enquiries. Based on the evidence before it, the committee is not persuaded that TimidGuy is paid to edit or to advocate on Wikipedia.
6.1) In apparent violation of the "No Personal Attacks" policy, Will Beback has persistently dwelt on editors' affiliations and has seemingly used the "affiliations [of others] as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views". (Extract from "What is considered to be a personal attack?") Examples: [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18]
6.2) Will Beback has repeatedly engaged in conduct inconsistent with the Outing and Harassment policies by focusing on personal information and real life identities. (Private evidence and public material)
6.3) Will Beback has either initiated or been an active participant in many discussions concerning TimidGuy and COI on noticeboard boards and high-profile talk pages. The frequency of participation is suggestive of battleground conduct and/or harassment. Examples include: COIN Feb 2009, COIN Aug 2009, COIN Aug 2009, COIN Jan 2010, SPI Jan 2010, ArbCom June 2010, AE Jul 2010, Jimbo Wales' talk page Aug 2011, Jimbo Wales' talk page Aug 2011, Sue Gardner's talk page Dec 2011, Sue Gardner's talk page Dec 2011.
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.
1) Note: the proposed remedies are accumulative, not alternate, unless otherwise stated.
1.1) Jimbo Wales' ban of TimidGuy is vacated.
1.2) TimidGuy is advised to adhere closely to the reliable sources (medicine) guideline in any edit he makes within the Transcendental Meditation topic.
2) Note: the proposed remedies are accumulative, not alternate, unless otherwise stated.
2.1) For conduct unbecoming an administrator, Will Beback is desysopped and may only regain the tools via a new Request for Adminship.
2.3) Will Beback is indefinitely topic banned from pages related to new religious movements, broadly construed.
2.4) Will Beback is indefinitely banned from English Wikipedia. After six months, he may appeal his ban to the Arbitration Committee, provided he is able to demonstrate to the Arbitration Committee that his history of disruptive conduct will not continue.
3) The community is encouraged to open a Request for comment on the "Conflicts of Interest" guideline with a view to reconciling some of the apparent contradictions discussed in the applicable finding of fact above.
The Arbitration Committee has, by motion, suspended Will Beback's ("WBB") site-ban on the following terms:
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.
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 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:
No administrator may modify or remove 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. 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:
|
Log any block, restriction, ban or extension under any remedy in this decision here. Minimum information includes name of administrator, date and time, what was done and the basis for doing it.
Case clerks: AlexandrDmitri ( Talk) & Dougweller ( Talk) Drafting arbitrators: Roger Davies ( Talk) & Jclemens ( Talk)
Wikipedia Arbitration |
---|
|
Track related changes |
Case Opened on 09:26, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
Case Closed on 00:51, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Amended by motion on 02:57, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
Please do not edit this page directly unless you are either 1) an Arbitrator, 2) an Arbitration Clerk, or 3) adding yourself to this case. 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. Any evidence you wish to provide to the Arbitrators should go on the /Evidence subpage.
Arbitrators, the parties, and other editors may suggest proposed principles, findings, and remedies at /Workshop. That page may also be used for general comments on the evidence. Arbitrators will then vote on a final decision in the case at /Proposed decision.
Once the case is closed, 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 remedies at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement.
I am appealing an indefinite ban from Wikipedia by Jimmy Wales. Will Beback accused me of conflict of interest via private email to Jimmy and Arbcom and two other Wikipedia editors on September 8. The email included alleged personal information and a number of demonstrable falsehoods and misrepresentations. Jimmy immediately banned me from all participation in Wikipedia due to my alleged conflict of interest.
The ban was immediate and abrupt, without my being invited to respond, so Jimmy agreed to hear my comments and opened a discussion via email, saying he would investigate the matter. On September 20 he characterized the ban as a “temporary injunction” while he investigated the case. On September 30, in response to my inquiry, he indicated he was going to spend an hour that day and several hours the next day investigating and then would get back to me. On October 12, in response to my inquiry, he kindly apologized for taking so long and said he would be finished with his research within a week.
I’ve not heard from him since. Since Jimmy is obviously very busy and hasn’t followed up with his investigation, I request that Arbcom take this case and examine the matter.
It is my contention that my editing behavior is not in violation of WP:COI. In particular, the ban seems unwarranted given that Arbcom addressed this issue in the TM Arbcom decision of June 2010, saying that an editor with a relationship to the organization isn’t prohibited from editing as long as he or she adheres to Wikipedia policies. [5] The issue was addressed again in a recent RfArb clarification that opened on August 26 and was archived September 12. Seven members of the committee responded, saying that COI isn’t itself sufficient basis for sanction and that it depends on whether edits themselves comply with Wikipedia policies. [6]
Since it is impossible to respond without discussing TimidGuy's RL identity and job, I have sent my response to the ArbCom by email.
1) The Arbitration Committee's duties and responsibilities include:
2) When hearing ban appeals, the Committee may – at its discretion – take evidence afresh and make a new determination. By default, the Committee hears proceedings in public and examines the conduct of all parties. Where significant privacy or harassment issues are involved, the Committee may hold a hearing in private and parties are given a reasonable opportunity to respond to what is said about them before a decision is made. Aspects of the present case relating to privacy and harassment were heard in private.
3) The banning policy states: " Jimbo Wales retains the authority to ban editors".
4) Since this case involves a ban placed by Jimbo Wales, no party in this case may appeal its outcome to Jimbo Wales, per Wikipedia:ARBPOL#Appeal of decisions.
5) When editors request or place sanctions in whatever forum on Wikipedia, the onus is on the editors requesting or placing those sanctions to provide the evidence to prove their claims. Failing to do so may constitute a personal attack. The longstanding "No Personal Attacks" policy states that "serious accusations require serious evidence".
6) Editing with a conflict of interest ("COI") is discouraged but not prohibited. This is because conflicts of interest can lead to violation of policies such as neutral point of view, what Wikipedia is not, and copyright compliance.
7) When investigating possible cases of COI editing, editors must comply fully with the outing policy. Editors repeatedly seeking private information (either via on-wiki questioning or via off-wiki investigations) contribute to a hostile editing environment, which may rise to the level of harassment. Wikipedia's policy against harassment and outing takes precedence over the COI guideline.
8) Editors accused of having a conflict of interest are not required to disclose private information by way of defence.
9) Per policy, "as a matter of … effective discourse, comments should not be personalized. That is, they should be directed at content and actions rather than people." Disparaging an editor or casting aspersions is a personal attack, regardless of the manner in which it is done. The usual exception to this principle is reasonably expressed concerns raised within a legitimate dispute resolution process.
10) It is prohibited by policy to disrupt other editors' enjoyment of Wikipedia by making threats, making repeated unwanted contacts, making repeat personal attacks, engaging in intimidation, or posting personal information. (From: "This Page in a Nutshell", Wikipedia:Harassment)
11) Wikipedia is not a battleground. Prolonged and repetitive use of community processes to perpetuate ideological and/or content disputes is extremely disruptive and creates a toxic environment.
12) Policy states: [while] administrators are not expected to be perfect... 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".
13) In accordance with the Arbitration policies on transparency and confidentiality and admissibility of evidence, cases involving credible allegations of inappropriate on-wiki posting of non-public information will be conducted in a manner designed to minimize the repetition of such information. Evidence of alleged misuse will be communicated to all parties to the case, but the scope of the case and number of parties will be carefully managed to minimize the unnecessary spread of such information, and every effort will be made to avoid publicly reposting such information in the course of a case.
1) This dispute concerns the conduct of two editors - Will Beback ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) and TimidGuy ( talk · contribs) - and has as its broad background the articles in the Transcendental Meditation movement ("TM") category. These articles have been the subject of numerous content disputes in which TimidGuy and Will Beback have been regular adversaries. Along with disputes about sources and verifiability, a recurrent long-running theme has been conflicts of interest.
2) Many issues concerning paid editing, anonymous editing, outing and harassment, are unresolved. Our policies and guidelines are complicated and sometimes contradictory. Investigating, sanctioning and/or exonerating editors on the basis of who they are or what they do in real life is not only controversial but often impossible. Furthermore, extreme cases apart, there is no consensus about the extent that editors may edit articles on topics with which they are personally involved. Hence, of necessity, review must focus primarily on the editing patterns of those editors about whom problems are claimed.
3.1) TimidGuy ( talk · contribs) created the account on 1 September 2006 and has made just under 8000 edits, mostly but not entirely within the TM topic.
3.2) TimidGuy has disclosed that he has a conflict of interest regarding TM. The first instance was on 8 Dec 2006. Other instances include: 31 Mar 2007, 25 Jan 2008, 22 Feb 2010 and 1 Aug 2010.
3.3) On 9 August 2010, TimidGuy was topic-banned at Arbitration Enforcement from TM-related articles for two months. The topic-ban expired on 9 October 2010. A revert restriction was imposed at the same time: this was withdrawn in December 2010.
4.1) Will Beback ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) is a very experienced editor and administrator, having made well over 100,000 edits. He has been an administrator since June 2005.
4.2) Will Beback was admonished in 2005 (then editing as User:Willmcw) and again in 2009. This later admonishment concerned a new religious movement, originating in India and focused on meditation, Prem Rawat. Will Beback was subsequently briefly blocked at Arbitration Enforcement for breaching an editing restriction.
5.1) On 30 August 2011, Will Beback participated in a discussion on Jimmy Wales's talk page about paid editing: [7], [8], [9]. He subsequently emailed Jimmy Wales, on 2 September 2011, copying the committee and others, making various allegations in respect of TimidGuy. Will Beback followed this up, on 8 September 2011, with more detailed allegations. Very shortly afterwards, Jimmy Wales responded by email, site-banning TimidGuy from the English Wikipedia.
5.2a) Analyses by arbitrators of TimidGuy's edits since October 2010, when the two-month topic ban elapsed, do not appear to have detected any significant systemic concerns or apparent advocacy. [10], [11]
5.2b) During the course of the review, evidence was presented which demonstrated that some of TimidGuy's editing did not comply with the reliable sources (medicine) guideline.
5.3) Since the sanctions elapsed, TimidGuy has made at least two edits which are inconsistent with the notion he was engaging in advocacy. In December 2010, he added "negative" material about TM "Contraindications". In February 2011, he removed " favourable" material about TM, because it was improperly sourced to press releases and a blog ("Yikes"). Will Beback was aware of both these edits at the time and commented on them: "Contraindications" response and "Yikes" response.
5.4) Analysis of TimidGuy's contributions since 14 February 2010 shows that the vast majority of his edits are made between 05:00 and 07:00, his local time.
5.5) For this appeal, in addition to the public material, the committee has examined private statements from Will Beback and from TimidGuy. The committee notes that some of the material submitted is unsupported assertion and some is inaccurate and has thus on occasion made its own enquiries. Based on the evidence before it, the committee is not persuaded that TimidGuy is paid to edit or to advocate on Wikipedia.
6.1) In apparent violation of the "No Personal Attacks" policy, Will Beback has persistently dwelt on editors' affiliations and has seemingly used the "affiliations [of others] as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views". (Extract from "What is considered to be a personal attack?") Examples: [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18]
6.2) Will Beback has repeatedly engaged in conduct inconsistent with the Outing and Harassment policies by focusing on personal information and real life identities. (Private evidence and public material)
6.3) Will Beback has either initiated or been an active participant in many discussions concerning TimidGuy and COI on noticeboard boards and high-profile talk pages. The frequency of participation is suggestive of battleground conduct and/or harassment. Examples include: COIN Feb 2009, COIN Aug 2009, COIN Aug 2009, COIN Jan 2010, SPI Jan 2010, ArbCom June 2010, AE Jul 2010, Jimbo Wales' talk page Aug 2011, Jimbo Wales' talk page Aug 2011, Sue Gardner's talk page Dec 2011, Sue Gardner's talk page Dec 2011.
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.
1) Note: the proposed remedies are accumulative, not alternate, unless otherwise stated.
1.1) Jimbo Wales' ban of TimidGuy is vacated.
1.2) TimidGuy is advised to adhere closely to the reliable sources (medicine) guideline in any edit he makes within the Transcendental Meditation topic.
2) Note: the proposed remedies are accumulative, not alternate, unless otherwise stated.
2.1) For conduct unbecoming an administrator, Will Beback is desysopped and may only regain the tools via a new Request for Adminship.
2.3) Will Beback is indefinitely topic banned from pages related to new religious movements, broadly construed.
2.4) Will Beback is indefinitely banned from English Wikipedia. After six months, he may appeal his ban to the Arbitration Committee, provided he is able to demonstrate to the Arbitration Committee that his history of disruptive conduct will not continue.
3) The community is encouraged to open a Request for comment on the "Conflicts of Interest" guideline with a view to reconciling some of the apparent contradictions discussed in the applicable finding of fact above.
The Arbitration Committee has, by motion, suspended Will Beback's ("WBB") site-ban on the following terms:
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.
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 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:
No administrator may modify or remove 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. 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:
|
Log any block, restriction, ban or extension under any remedy in this decision here. Minimum information includes name of administrator, date and time, what was done and the basis for doing it.