Case clerks: Kostas20142 ( Talk) & Amortias ( Talk) & L235 ( Talk) Drafting arbitrators: Euryalus ( Talk) & Newyorkbrad ( Talk)
Wikipedia Arbitration |
---|
|
Track related changes |
Case opened on 18:44, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
Case closed on 19:10, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
Case amended by motion on 06:18, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
Once the case is closed, editors should edit the #Enforcement log as needed, but the other content of this page may not be edited except by clerks or arbitrators. Please raise any questions about this decision at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment, any general questions at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee, and report violations of the remedies passed in the decision to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement.
I am filing this case request to ask the committee to review the actions of Salvidrim! and Salvidrim! (paid) in regards to paid editing and the potential of paid advocacy meatpuppetry by an administrator and SPI clerk as well as the potential misuse of the admin toolset to take actions he was specifically paid to do. Jytdog has laid out the basic timeline here.
Salvidrim! created the Salvidrim! (paid) account on 1 November 2017 because it would be controversial to edit from an admin account. Six minutes later granted himself confirmed, pending changes reviewer, rollback, and page mover user rights. He explicitly did not grant himself the autopatrolled flag because he knew this would be controversial. He then disclosed that he had been paid to move Studio71 to the brand's preferred title. He then used the pager mover rights he had assigned himself to execute a round-robin page move to the firm's preferred stylization of its brand and away from what had been the stable title for over 18 months without community oversight either at WP:RM/TR or through a full RM.
Additionally based on self-disclosed Facebook messenger conversation between Salvidrim! and Soetermans, who is also a disclosed paid editor for Mister Wiki, that Salvidrim! asked Soetermans to review AfC drafts for a Mister Wiki client that he had been paid for his involvement with because he did not think it was fair to the client to make them wait. This was after the WP:PAY guideline was updated to include guidance that paid editors should not accept their own AfC drafts (For full disclosure, I revdel'd under RD4 on COIN without knowing there was consent, thinking could be outing, and emailed the oversight team for assessment).
Soetermans then requested AfC access which was later granted (and then removed) by Primefac: [3], [4], [5]. The only AfC reviews that Sotermans reviews are the articles Salvidrim! had declared he was paid to edit: [6], [7]. Soetermans explains the situation here, and classified the moves as "return[ing] the favor" for asking Salvidrim to accept a previous AfC draft that Sotermans had been paid to edit. Salvidrim! later acknowledged that this effectively amounted to meatpuppetry.
At the COIN thread there appears to be unanimous agreement from a wide range of editors that the best way forward on this would be for Salvidrim! to resign the tools and stand for RfA again. Salvidrim! has stated that he is open to some form of sanctions, but doesn't feel he should have to resign or be desysoped.
As this is an administrator conduct issue involving potential violations of the sock puppetry policy for pay by an SPI clerk, and other potential misuse of the tools for pay, I think that the committee needs to answer the question as to if a breach of trust occurred, and if it did, what should happen. TonyBallioni ( talk) 20:10, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
misuse of community trust on administrative tools, which is how I tried to focus the case on by showing diffs of questionable judgement in regards to how they interact with COI and paid editing. The question here like you, GMG, and TNT have pointed out is one of competence and integrity. This should be the primary focus of the case.At the same time, I do think there is room for the committee to clarify what counts stepping over the line in terms of use of community trust and paid editing. The recent site ban of KDS4444 and the ongoing discussion at VPP as to what our guidelines are here when it comes to using advanced permissions to engage in paid editing are a bit murky to those who participate in it and to the community. There is broad consensus that it shouldn't happen, the question is when the line is crossed. (Also, this case would deal more with WP:PAY, part of the COI guideline rather than WP:PAID, which is part of the WMF TOU.) TonyBallioni ( talk) 21:43, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
more comments and replies
|
---|
|
Alt-perms
- I added permissions to my alt
Salvidrim! (paid) using my main account instead of via PERM. Perhap "Confirmed" and even "Rollback" by themselves might have been passable if ill-advised, but "page mover" and "reviewer" should never have been granted to a paid sock without review by a neutral admin (if at all).AfC collusion
- As is now well-documented, I asked a friend, Soetermans, for an AfC review of two articles I had been paid to clean-up, which was a clear breach of every COI handling rule and guideline imaginable and a perversion of the very purpose of AfC. I apologize for allowing himself to be dragged into this (although as he says himself and as our FB conversation shows, nobody forced anyone else) and was a severe breach of the community' trust. The time it took to realize that fact after initially being confronted by Jytdog only adds to the shame engendered by my arrogant faith in my own implacable integrity.
more comments and replies
|
---|
|
I appreciate some people saying I shouldn't have to be a part of this. However, I'm the one that dragged Ben (@ Salvidrim!) into this in the first place. A month ago, my first paid gig was Datari Turner. It might've take over a month to get accepted. Because I was impatient I asked Ben for the favor of moving it out of draft space, which he did on October 20th. This was before he was involved with Mister Wiki; it was a favor to me personally. But it was through me that Ben also came into contact with Mister Wiki. A week or so, Ben asked me in turn to help out with two articles, Reza Izad and Dan Weinstein (business executive). Thinking notability trumps neutrality and transparency, I requested AfC rights and quickly okayed the two articles. If my initial asking wasn't crossing the line already, this was a quod pro quo corruption-like situation. I take full blame for my actions, and I'm very sorry for the damage I've caused. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 09:29, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse)
All tallies are based the votes at /Proposed decision, where comments and discussion from the voting phase is also available.
1) The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among contributors. Use of the site for other purposes, such as advocacy or propaganda or furtherance of outside conflicts is prohibited. Contributors whose actions are detrimental to that goal may be asked to refrain from them, even when these actions are undertaken in good faith.
2) Because Wikipedia is intended to be written from a neutral point of view, it is necessary that conflicts of interest are properly disclosed, and articles or edits by conflicted editors are reasonably available for review by others. Editors are expected to comply with both the purpose and intent of the applicable policies, as well as their literal wording.
2A) Paid editing, particularly commercial paid editing, on English Wikipedia has historically been controversial. The Wikimedia Foundation Terms of Use require that editors making contributions in return for payment must make certain disclosures on-wiki. Paid editors must comply with both the WMF Terms of Use as well as any more specific requirements contained in the relevant English Wikipedia policy.
2B) The core definition of "paid editing" includes an edit made, or an on-wiki action taken, by an editor in return for payment to or for the benefit of that editor.
2C) At the time of the events underlying this case, English Wikipedia policies governing administrators did not expressly discuss whether administrators may utilize their administrator tools as part of a fully disclosed paid editing assignment. A request for comment is currently underway in which the community is discussing this issue.
3) A paid editor has a potential conflict of interest with any article or subject that their firm has been retained to edit, even if they were not directly paid to take action in relation to that specific article or subject.
4) Administrators are trusted members of the community and are expected to follow Wikipedia policies. They are expected to pursue their duties to the best of their abilities. Occasional mistakes are entirely compatible with this; administrators are not expected to be perfect. However, consistently or egregiously poor judgement may result in the removal of administrator status.
5) Inappropriate behaviour driven by good intentions is still inappropriate. Editors acting in good faith may still be sanctioned when their actions are disruptive or otherwise violate policy.
6) In deciding what sanctions to impose against an administrator or other editor, the Arbitration Committee will consider the editor's overall record of participation, behavioural history, and other relevant circumstances. An editor's positive and valuable contributions in one aspect of his or her participation on Wikipedia do not excuse misbehaviour or questionable judgement in another aspect of participation, but may be considered in determining the sanction to be imposed.
1) Salvidrim! ( talk · contribs) and Soetermans ( talk · contribs) are (or were) disclosed paid editors for a group called Mister Wiki, which was then organised by User:JacobMW (now renamed to JacobPace ( talk · contribs)). All three editors declared their paid editing involvement. All three editors had the potential for a conflict of interest in the terms of that guideline, on articles or edits paid for via Mister Wiki.
2) On 1 November 2017, Salvidrim! breached the administrator policy and conflict of interest guideline by granting pagemover rights to the alternative account Salvidrim! (paid) ( talk · contribs) without community review, and in order to facilitate a paid edit. [8] [9] [10].
2A) During discussions with Jacob from Mister Wiki (discussed by Salvidrim! here and submitted as private evidence), Salvidrim! repeatedly coached Jacob on how to avoid drawing community scrutiny. This effort to evade community discussion and review of paid edits directly contradicts the spirit of WP:COI, which is focused on openness and disclosure. As an administrator and experienced user, Salvidrim! should have been aware of the expectation that paid and COI edits require additional community scrutiny, not less.
3) Salvidrim! breached WP:PAY by specifically obtaining AfC reviews from Soetermans for Mister Wiki articles on Reza Izad and Dan Weinstein (business executive). [11] [12]
4.1) Salvidrim! moved two articles for which he was a paid Mister Wiki editor from mainspace to the Articles for Creation (AfC) draftspace, and then either requested or knowingly allowed another paid Mister Wiki editor to review the drafts. (See summaries here and here). While putting an article that is the subject of paid-editing or COI or NPOV concerns through AfC for an impartial review can mitigate those concerns, Salvidrim! should have understood that the value of doing so is eliminated when the reviewer is known to have the same conflict.
6) In contrast with some of the above conduct, Salvidrim! acted with commendable transparency during the case including providing supporting evidence and detail even where it may not have suited their interests to do so.
7) Soetermans breached WP:PAY by providing AfC reviews for Salvidrim! for Mister Wiki articles Reza Izad and Dan Weinstein (business executive). [13], [14]
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) For conduct unbecoming an administrator, Salvidrim! is desysopped. They may regain administrator tools at any time via a successful RfA.
Note: Salvidrim! resigned their tools during the case. This is formally considered a resignation in controversial circumstances: administrator status may only be regained via a successful RfA.
Rescinded by
motion
|
---|
2.1) Salvidrim! is prohibited from reviewing articles for creation drafts, or moving AfC drafts created by other editors into mainspace. This restriction can be appealed in 12 months. |
5) Salvidrim! is warned that further breaches of WP:COI will be grounds for sanctions including blocks, in accordance with community policies and guidelines.
6.1) Soetermans is prohibited from reviewing articles for creation drafts, or moving AfC drafts created by other editors into mainspace. This restriction can be appealed in 12 months.
8) Soetermans is warned that further breaches of WP:COI will be grounds for sanctions including blocks, in accordance with community policies and guidelines.
Remedy 2.1 of the Conduct of Mister Wiki editors arbitration case ( t) ( ev / t) ( w / t) ( pd / t) (Salvidrim's prohibition from reviewing articles for creation drafts) is rescinded. He may apply for use of the AfC helper script as usual at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation/Participants.
Passed 8 to 0 with 1 abstentions by motion at 06:22, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
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:
|
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.
Case clerks: Kostas20142 ( Talk) & Amortias ( Talk) & L235 ( Talk) Drafting arbitrators: Euryalus ( Talk) & Newyorkbrad ( Talk)
Wikipedia Arbitration |
---|
|
Track related changes |
Case opened on 18:44, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
Case closed on 19:10, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
Case amended by motion on 06:18, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
Once the case is closed, editors should edit the #Enforcement log as needed, but the other content of this page may not be edited except by clerks or arbitrators. Please raise any questions about this decision at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment, any general questions at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee, and report violations of the remedies passed in the decision to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement.
I am filing this case request to ask the committee to review the actions of Salvidrim! and Salvidrim! (paid) in regards to paid editing and the potential of paid advocacy meatpuppetry by an administrator and SPI clerk as well as the potential misuse of the admin toolset to take actions he was specifically paid to do. Jytdog has laid out the basic timeline here.
Salvidrim! created the Salvidrim! (paid) account on 1 November 2017 because it would be controversial to edit from an admin account. Six minutes later granted himself confirmed, pending changes reviewer, rollback, and page mover user rights. He explicitly did not grant himself the autopatrolled flag because he knew this would be controversial. He then disclosed that he had been paid to move Studio71 to the brand's preferred title. He then used the pager mover rights he had assigned himself to execute a round-robin page move to the firm's preferred stylization of its brand and away from what had been the stable title for over 18 months without community oversight either at WP:RM/TR or through a full RM.
Additionally based on self-disclosed Facebook messenger conversation between Salvidrim! and Soetermans, who is also a disclosed paid editor for Mister Wiki, that Salvidrim! asked Soetermans to review AfC drafts for a Mister Wiki client that he had been paid for his involvement with because he did not think it was fair to the client to make them wait. This was after the WP:PAY guideline was updated to include guidance that paid editors should not accept their own AfC drafts (For full disclosure, I revdel'd under RD4 on COIN without knowing there was consent, thinking could be outing, and emailed the oversight team for assessment).
Soetermans then requested AfC access which was later granted (and then removed) by Primefac: [3], [4], [5]. The only AfC reviews that Sotermans reviews are the articles Salvidrim! had declared he was paid to edit: [6], [7]. Soetermans explains the situation here, and classified the moves as "return[ing] the favor" for asking Salvidrim to accept a previous AfC draft that Sotermans had been paid to edit. Salvidrim! later acknowledged that this effectively amounted to meatpuppetry.
At the COIN thread there appears to be unanimous agreement from a wide range of editors that the best way forward on this would be for Salvidrim! to resign the tools and stand for RfA again. Salvidrim! has stated that he is open to some form of sanctions, but doesn't feel he should have to resign or be desysoped.
As this is an administrator conduct issue involving potential violations of the sock puppetry policy for pay by an SPI clerk, and other potential misuse of the tools for pay, I think that the committee needs to answer the question as to if a breach of trust occurred, and if it did, what should happen. TonyBallioni ( talk) 20:10, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
misuse of community trust on administrative tools, which is how I tried to focus the case on by showing diffs of questionable judgement in regards to how they interact with COI and paid editing. The question here like you, GMG, and TNT have pointed out is one of competence and integrity. This should be the primary focus of the case.At the same time, I do think there is room for the committee to clarify what counts stepping over the line in terms of use of community trust and paid editing. The recent site ban of KDS4444 and the ongoing discussion at VPP as to what our guidelines are here when it comes to using advanced permissions to engage in paid editing are a bit murky to those who participate in it and to the community. There is broad consensus that it shouldn't happen, the question is when the line is crossed. (Also, this case would deal more with WP:PAY, part of the COI guideline rather than WP:PAID, which is part of the WMF TOU.) TonyBallioni ( talk) 21:43, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
more comments and replies
|
---|
|
Alt-perms
- I added permissions to my alt
Salvidrim! (paid) using my main account instead of via PERM. Perhap "Confirmed" and even "Rollback" by themselves might have been passable if ill-advised, but "page mover" and "reviewer" should never have been granted to a paid sock without review by a neutral admin (if at all).AfC collusion
- As is now well-documented, I asked a friend, Soetermans, for an AfC review of two articles I had been paid to clean-up, which was a clear breach of every COI handling rule and guideline imaginable and a perversion of the very purpose of AfC. I apologize for allowing himself to be dragged into this (although as he says himself and as our FB conversation shows, nobody forced anyone else) and was a severe breach of the community' trust. The time it took to realize that fact after initially being confronted by Jytdog only adds to the shame engendered by my arrogant faith in my own implacable integrity.
more comments and replies
|
---|
|
I appreciate some people saying I shouldn't have to be a part of this. However, I'm the one that dragged Ben (@ Salvidrim!) into this in the first place. A month ago, my first paid gig was Datari Turner. It might've take over a month to get accepted. Because I was impatient I asked Ben for the favor of moving it out of draft space, which he did on October 20th. This was before he was involved with Mister Wiki; it was a favor to me personally. But it was through me that Ben also came into contact with Mister Wiki. A week or so, Ben asked me in turn to help out with two articles, Reza Izad and Dan Weinstein (business executive). Thinking notability trumps neutrality and transparency, I requested AfC rights and quickly okayed the two articles. If my initial asking wasn't crossing the line already, this was a quod pro quo corruption-like situation. I take full blame for my actions, and I'm very sorry for the damage I've caused. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 09:29, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse)
All tallies are based the votes at /Proposed decision, where comments and discussion from the voting phase is also available.
1) The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among contributors. Use of the site for other purposes, such as advocacy or propaganda or furtherance of outside conflicts is prohibited. Contributors whose actions are detrimental to that goal may be asked to refrain from them, even when these actions are undertaken in good faith.
2) Because Wikipedia is intended to be written from a neutral point of view, it is necessary that conflicts of interest are properly disclosed, and articles or edits by conflicted editors are reasonably available for review by others. Editors are expected to comply with both the purpose and intent of the applicable policies, as well as their literal wording.
2A) Paid editing, particularly commercial paid editing, on English Wikipedia has historically been controversial. The Wikimedia Foundation Terms of Use require that editors making contributions in return for payment must make certain disclosures on-wiki. Paid editors must comply with both the WMF Terms of Use as well as any more specific requirements contained in the relevant English Wikipedia policy.
2B) The core definition of "paid editing" includes an edit made, or an on-wiki action taken, by an editor in return for payment to or for the benefit of that editor.
2C) At the time of the events underlying this case, English Wikipedia policies governing administrators did not expressly discuss whether administrators may utilize their administrator tools as part of a fully disclosed paid editing assignment. A request for comment is currently underway in which the community is discussing this issue.
3) A paid editor has a potential conflict of interest with any article or subject that their firm has been retained to edit, even if they were not directly paid to take action in relation to that specific article or subject.
4) Administrators are trusted members of the community and are expected to follow Wikipedia policies. They are expected to pursue their duties to the best of their abilities. Occasional mistakes are entirely compatible with this; administrators are not expected to be perfect. However, consistently or egregiously poor judgement may result in the removal of administrator status.
5) Inappropriate behaviour driven by good intentions is still inappropriate. Editors acting in good faith may still be sanctioned when their actions are disruptive or otherwise violate policy.
6) In deciding what sanctions to impose against an administrator or other editor, the Arbitration Committee will consider the editor's overall record of participation, behavioural history, and other relevant circumstances. An editor's positive and valuable contributions in one aspect of his or her participation on Wikipedia do not excuse misbehaviour or questionable judgement in another aspect of participation, but may be considered in determining the sanction to be imposed.
1) Salvidrim! ( talk · contribs) and Soetermans ( talk · contribs) are (or were) disclosed paid editors for a group called Mister Wiki, which was then organised by User:JacobMW (now renamed to JacobPace ( talk · contribs)). All three editors declared their paid editing involvement. All three editors had the potential for a conflict of interest in the terms of that guideline, on articles or edits paid for via Mister Wiki.
2) On 1 November 2017, Salvidrim! breached the administrator policy and conflict of interest guideline by granting pagemover rights to the alternative account Salvidrim! (paid) ( talk · contribs) without community review, and in order to facilitate a paid edit. [8] [9] [10].
2A) During discussions with Jacob from Mister Wiki (discussed by Salvidrim! here and submitted as private evidence), Salvidrim! repeatedly coached Jacob on how to avoid drawing community scrutiny. This effort to evade community discussion and review of paid edits directly contradicts the spirit of WP:COI, which is focused on openness and disclosure. As an administrator and experienced user, Salvidrim! should have been aware of the expectation that paid and COI edits require additional community scrutiny, not less.
3) Salvidrim! breached WP:PAY by specifically obtaining AfC reviews from Soetermans for Mister Wiki articles on Reza Izad and Dan Weinstein (business executive). [11] [12]
4.1) Salvidrim! moved two articles for which he was a paid Mister Wiki editor from mainspace to the Articles for Creation (AfC) draftspace, and then either requested or knowingly allowed another paid Mister Wiki editor to review the drafts. (See summaries here and here). While putting an article that is the subject of paid-editing or COI or NPOV concerns through AfC for an impartial review can mitigate those concerns, Salvidrim! should have understood that the value of doing so is eliminated when the reviewer is known to have the same conflict.
6) In contrast with some of the above conduct, Salvidrim! acted with commendable transparency during the case including providing supporting evidence and detail even where it may not have suited their interests to do so.
7) Soetermans breached WP:PAY by providing AfC reviews for Salvidrim! for Mister Wiki articles Reza Izad and Dan Weinstein (business executive). [13], [14]
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) For conduct unbecoming an administrator, Salvidrim! is desysopped. They may regain administrator tools at any time via a successful RfA.
Note: Salvidrim! resigned their tools during the case. This is formally considered a resignation in controversial circumstances: administrator status may only be regained via a successful RfA.
Rescinded by
motion
|
---|
2.1) Salvidrim! is prohibited from reviewing articles for creation drafts, or moving AfC drafts created by other editors into mainspace. This restriction can be appealed in 12 months. |
5) Salvidrim! is warned that further breaches of WP:COI will be grounds for sanctions including blocks, in accordance with community policies and guidelines.
6.1) Soetermans is prohibited from reviewing articles for creation drafts, or moving AfC drafts created by other editors into mainspace. This restriction can be appealed in 12 months.
8) Soetermans is warned that further breaches of WP:COI will be grounds for sanctions including blocks, in accordance with community policies and guidelines.
Remedy 2.1 of the Conduct of Mister Wiki editors arbitration case ( t) ( ev / t) ( w / t) ( pd / t) (Salvidrim's prohibition from reviewing articles for creation drafts) is rescinded. He may apply for use of the AfC helper script as usual at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation/Participants.
Passed 8 to 0 with 1 abstentions by motion at 06:22, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
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:
|
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.