From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Case Opened on 11:16, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Case Closed on 05:35, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Please do not edit this page directly unless you wish to become a participant in this request. (All participants are subject to Arbitration Committee decisions, and the ArbCom will consider each participant's role in the dispute.) Comments are very welcome on the Talk page, and will be read, in full. Evidence, no matter who can provide it, is very welcome at /Evidence. Evidence is more useful than comments.

Arbitrators will be working on evidence and suggesting proposed decisions at /Workshop and voting on proposed decisions at /Proposed decision.

Involved parties

Requests for comment

Statement by Coolcaesar ( talk · contribs)

User Ericsaindon2 has been engaged in continuous edit warring and repeated violations of 3RR on Anaheim Hills, Anaheim, California since 5 April 2006 and possibly earlier. He has used at least known two sockpuppets, OC31113, and IP address 69.232.62.33. Anaheim Hills is merely a neighborhood of the city of Anaheim which lacks any kind of official legal recognition or defined boundaries. I and Will Beback have researched and explained this in exhaustive detail at Talk:Anaheim Hills, Anaheim, California (see also the archives). Ericsaindon2 appears to have the primary objective of portraying Anaheim Hills as a city or city-like community on Wikipedia, in direct violation of all core Wikipedia policies: WP:V (he has no proof), WP:NOR (his view is original research not published elsewhere), and WP:NPOV (his position is a uniquely personal point of view that no one else endorses). Towards this end, his two secondary objectives are: (1) to add a infobox that resembles the standard city infobox; and (2) to move the article to Anaheim Hills, California. These issues have been carefully debated and the consensus of all editors involved with Southern California-related articles is contrary to his objectives. His actions have been reverted, he has been blocked, and the article has been protected several times (as indicated by its history and his block log). He has used sockpuppets to get around the blocks, in clear violation of Wikipedia policy. He also likes to upload images of questionable provenance in violation of copyright law. -- Coolcaesar 00:17, 11 July 2006 (UTC) reply
I just found out about the CheckUser feature. I request any user with the CheckUser privilege to analyze the IP addresses of OC31113 and Ericsaindon2. Because the two users' have highly similar writing styles and interests, it appears that OC31113 is a sockpuppet of Ericsaindon2, but it would be nice to have evidence of identical IP addresses as additional evidence in this case. -- Coolcaesar 16:42, 16 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Using checkuser I have confirmed that the two accounts used the same ip part of the time. Fred Bauder 12:30, 17 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Note that Ericsaindon2 just tried to reverse the meaning of this post. [1]. - Will Beback 20:24, 18 July 2006 (UTC) reply
He let me use his account when some admin put me on a 7 day block, when I was only suppose to get 24 hours for one of those split-3rr's Will likes so much. -- Ericsaindon2 10:36, 19 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Statement by Ericsaindon2 ( talk · contribs)

For the past three months, I have been tediously trying to serve justice to the Anaheim Hills page, and put it back to the location where it sat for three years before I began editing it. I have put a tedious amount of work into the page, and have based all of my statistics on Census™ neighborhood by neighborhood to determine an overall Census statistics for the community. Since I worked 6 hours on gathering this information for all the areas south of the 91 freeway, Will Beback and Coolcaesar have continuously tried to keep it off the page, even though I continue to provide sources through Census. The infobox has been totally modified to meet a community standard, deleting all the details that are only true for cities. It even includes the city it is part of in the infobox, and is titled Community of Anaheim Hills, California, with a map that shows Anaheim Hills within Anaheim. There is no way that you can mistake the community as a city, for it is referenced 3 times in the infobox alone, not to mention in the article several times.

Next, the naming issue. The page sat at Anaheim Hills, California for nearly 2 1/2 years before I edited it extensively. After I edited it, user:Mike Dillon moved it to Anaheim Hills, Anaheim, California after no consensus or talk about this. I moved it back, and he seemed to back off, and said that it was typical, but he didnt mind the change, so he let me keep it at that location. Then, user:COolcaesar came along. He stated that the ONLY location for Anaheim Hills, California was using the {community, city, state}, and that EVERY page used this format, and there were no exceptions. Since then, they have yet to find any page that clearly states that Anaheim Hills, California has to be at the {community, city, state} format. Since then, I have had the brunt of retaliation from COolcaesar, and have heard no proof for the statements he made about the format. The only rule stated by Wikipedia is that you use the most common name known for the topic, and that would be either Anaheim Hills or Anaheim Hills, California; and by no means is Anaheim Hills, Anaheim, California the most simplified version of the name. Plus, rules have it that you must also use the most common name, which in this case is Anaheim Hills, California. When referring to our president of the USA, you dont refer to him as George Walker Bush, his legally technical name, you refer to him as Geroge W. Bush, which is what the page is named. Or we dont use Magnoliophyta when referring to a flowering plant, because the common name is flowering plant, although the government states it in an official document as Magnoliophyta. Now, the word flowering plant is probably never referred to in the official governmental plan directory, but just because it isnt listed there doesnt mean that it doesnt exist, and it is referrred to as a flowering plant on the Wikipedia page. It is referenced at the most common name. Now, using all these lies that could not be backed up, a highly manipulated straw poll, which sold all this unreferenced information to the voters lead to a minor defeat on my naming setup, and it was all because of them stating how the name had to be {community, city, state}, and there were NO EXCEPTIONS. Yet, they found no answer when I found hundreds of communities that didnt follow that setup (listed below), it was after the straw poll closed (which was closed convinently when they finally had the majority of the votes).

La Jolla, Boulevard, Campo, Cuyamaca, Dulzura, Santa Ysabel, Midway City, Ballston, Virginia, Clarendon, Virginia, Courthouse, Virginia, Fairlington, Virginia, Shirlington, Virginia, Virginia Square, Virginia, Oakhurst, Georgia, Downtown Berkeley, California, East Boston, Massachusetts, Charlestown, Massachusetts, Dorchester, Massachusetts, Hyde Park, Massachusetts, Jamaica Plain, Massachusetts, Mandela, Massachusetts, Mattapan, Massachusetts, Readville, Massachusetts, South Boston, Massachusetts, West Roxbury, Massachusetts, California, Ohio, Bond Hill, Ohio, Clifton Heights, Ohio, Beedles Station, Ohio, Bidwell, Ohio, Blue Ball, Ohio, Evanston, Ohio, Fort Ancient, Ohio, Greentree Corner, Ohio, Level, Ohio, Middletown Junction, Ohio, New Burlington, Ohio, Rinard Mills, Ohio, Pleasant Grove, Texas, Downtown Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, Hawaii Kai, Hawaii, He'eia, Hawaii, Kailua, Hawaii, Kapolei, Hawaii, Mililani, Hawai'i, North Ko'olaupoko, Hawai'i, Salt Lake, Hawaii, Waimanalo Beach, Hawaii, Waipio, Hawaii, Ashville, Kentucky, Avoca, Kentucky, Ballardsville, Kentucky, Beckley, Kentucky, Beechland Beach, Kentucky, Berrytown, Kentucky, Bethany, Kentucky, Boston, Kentucky, Clark Station, Kentucky, Eastwood, Kentucky, English Station, Kentucky, Fairmount, Kentucky, Fisherville, Kentucky, Freys Hill, Kentucky, Greenwood, Kentucky, Griffytown, Kentucky, Harrods Creek, Kentucky, Hopewell, Kentucky, Hunters Trace, Kentucky, Johnsontown, Kentucky, Juniper Beach, Kentucky, Knopp, Kentucky, Kosmosdale, Kentucky, Lake Dreamland, Kentucky, Lake Louisvilla, Kentucky, Lakeland, Kentucky, Long Run, Kentucky, Longview, Kentucky, Meadowlawn, Kentucky, Medora, Kentucky, O'Bannon, Kentucky, Orell, Kentucky, Parkwood, Kentucky, Penile, Kentucky, Petersburg, Kentucky, Plainview, Kentucky, Prairie Village, Kentucky, Riverside Gardens, Kentucky, Routt, Kentucky, Rubbertown, Kentucky, Seatonville, Kentucky, Smyrna, Kentucky, South Park, Kentucky, Springdale, Kentucky, Sylvania, Kentucky, Thixton, Kentucky, Transylvania Beach, Kentucky, Tucker Station, Kentucky, Valley Downs, Kentucky, Valley Gardens, Kentucky, Valley Village, Kentucky, Waverly Hills, Kentucky, Whitner, Kentucky, Worthington (Jefferson), Kentucky, Downtown Memphis, Tennessee, Bay View, Wisconsin, Granville, Wisconsin, Milwaukee (town), Wisconsin, Algiers, Louisiana, Carrollton, Louisiana, Little Germany, New York, Downtown Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, Manchester, Virginia, Mission Valley, California, East Syracuse, New York, Fayetteville, New York, Solvay, New York, Spenard, Alaska, Eagle River, Alaska, Eklutna, Alaska, Auburn, Rhode Island, New Tampa, Florida, West Tampa, Florida, Pinecraft, Florida

As far as the sockpuppets, I have none. I use my IP number before I log in sometimes to Wikipedia. But I have no sockpuppets. The users that claim I have sockpuppets only feel that because they think that everyone who agrees with me must be a sockpuppet, which is purely false. Many times in the past, many of these users that they claimed as my sockpuppets, Will Beback has blocked them when I break a rule, and I get blocked when they break a rule. So, wheter were guilty or not, we are continuously all blocked if one of us does something wrong, which is totally showing a lack of proof. -- Ericsaindon2 16:15, 11 July 2006 (UTC) reply
And referring to the behavior of the admin and his little friend, Coolcaesar. Over the past few weeks, Coolcaesar has been contributing to this dispute equally as I have. The difference is that he has hired this guard to protect him, Will Beback. Since this abusive relationship began, every action I make is scrutenized and reported to Coolcaesar to give him information from Will Beback, the admin. I, and all my supporters are allowed to make a combined 3rr's a day, yet each of them (Coolcaesars supporters have been given 3rr's each which is what the rule states). I can make 1 edit in 24 hours, but if someone else who supports me (even in one instance a bot made a revert in my favor) I get blocked. I dont know what the relationship between the two is, but Will Beback has coached him on his talk page about how to increase this nonexistent problem, and its believability from this honorable commitee. There was no problem until Coolcaesar created it, because I have off and on edited the page for 6 months with no problem until Coolcaesar showed up. Even to this moment, this abusive admin still has blocked my brother, and the block that was suppose to be 24 hours for one of our "combined 3rr's" has gone on for 9 days now, so he has been unable to comment here, but he is angry at them too. I understand the arguing of people when disagreeing, and this step is totally unnecessary. I dont see how two people who were equally involved in a dispute can only punish one, just because another has enlisted an admin who acts as his attorney, and information source. Its downright wrong. You can clearly see how the admin has used his abusive powers on the Anaheim Hills talk page, and being subjective to his punishments. He punishes everyone on the talk page who makes a rude comment to another editor, (which in total is about 12 or 13 instances) yet has never told the very bold Coolcaesar to keep his comments friendly. There are many examples of this subjective punishment on the talk page. If this goes to arbitration (which I hope it does not) I will not sit there and let these admins harass and abuse other editors if it is the last thing I do on Wikipedia. I hope that you will realize that Coolcaesar and I deserve the same punishment, if any at all for content dispute (which could be cured with mediation), and that Will Beback will learn that his adminship is not to be abused. -- Ericsaindon2 07:45, 13 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Statement by Will Beback ( talk · contribs)

[Description partly adapted from Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Ericsaindon2

Ericsaindon2's entire three-month editing career has revolved around one topic: a district of Anaheim, California called Anaheim Hills. The district has no official existence, hasn't been recognized by any government agency, and at most is simply a neighborhood of a larger city. Despite this fact, ES has been using Wikipedia as a soapbox to promote Anaheim Hills as a separate place. He hasn't promoted an independence movement, which might be at least considered a POV, but instead has sought to declare Anaheim Hills as a city by editorial fiat. He apparently created a "seal of the city of Anaheim Hills", drew (or copied) maps of the area, derived demographic data through calculations, added the article to lists of cities, and then edit-warred over the inclusions of the original research. During these content disputes ES has repeatedly ignored the consensus of other editors (including misusing straw polls), has used sock puppets, has violated the 3RR (and NOR, V, etc.), has expressed ownership of the article, and has disrupted the project to illustrate a point. (These complaints are documented in the RfC).

The RfC on ES, filed June 5, was certified by six users, and endorsed by four more, collectively some of the most engaged editors on the general topic of Southern California places. ES's own account was endorsed only by his sockpuppets. Since the RfC he has continued in the same behaviors. He has again been blocked for violating 3RR [2], disrupted the project to illustrate points [3], used an apparent sock/meat puppet [4], engaged in original research [5], made fraudulent references to Anaheim Hills as a city [6], and made personal attacks on editors [7]. There are more examples that we can documented if the arbitration request is accepted.

I urge the ArbCom to take this case. This RfAr is about Ericsaindon2's behavior, not the legal status of a neighborhood, naming conventions, or infoboxes, about which reasonable editors can disagree. ES continues to disrupt the project in order to advance his pet cause. Since the problem is entirely concerned with the one topic (albeit bleeding over into a number of similar articles in Orange County), a subject ban could be an appropriate remedy. - Will Beback 09:50, 11 July 2006 (UTC) reply

A minor, but telling, point is that ES places fraudulent information on his user page. The old version, [8], claimed that he had been Awarded Ultimate Wikipedia Editor for the month of December 2005, though he has not been editing that long and there is no such prize. His current page, [9], claims that he is an admin and has made over 9000 edits, neither of which are true. - Will Beback 06:32, 13 July 2006 (UTC) reply
Anoher user just pointed out that user:OC31113, on his first day of editing, made this comment: I have not had alot of support up until this point on the page, and do truely thank you for putting the infobox back on, and keeping my hard work from being removed. [10] The infobox in question had been created by user:Ericsaindon2.
And the statement gathered from Daniel Bryants page from above. I took credit for Ericsaindon2's work because I did not want to give him a long description about who created it and why, so for the sake of briefness, I just told him I created it like Ericsaindon2 had left the message (because if I had told him the full story, I would have had to create my own archive on his talk page). -- OC31113 21:01, 17 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Checkuser request

Due to the allegations that user:Ericsaindon2 has used sock puppets, I request that the CheckUser tool be used to inspect the records in regard to user:OC31113. user:Es92808 is also presumed to be a sock or meat puppet, but it may not have been used recently enough to show up.

Suspected puppets and known IPS

On the other side, a posible sock account is being used to revert ES's edits

Comment by user:Will Beback

user:Mr.Executive is apparently a sock puppet of user:Ericsaindon2 (currently blocked), about whom Coolcaesar made a request for arbitration. - Will Beback 09:32, 20 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Your statement has no basis, for you have no basis, or understanding for this other than your defending the editor, I am going to move your comment to the Ericsaindon2 case below, that is more appropriate for this comment. This does not even involve this user. - Mr.Executive 09:38, 20 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Statement by OC31113 ( talk · contribs)

Over the past two weeks, as I start fresh on a new account as for I moved from the east coast to Orange County, I have involved myself in local pages under a new screenname while still editing under my previous screenname in New York on a continuous basis. I am not a sockpuppet of user:ericsaindon2, and far from it. I agree with him at times, and others I dont, but that does not justify giving me punishment every time he does something to irritate the admins, and visa versa.

Well, on to the topic at hand. I have become involved in the page after user:ericsaindon2 found me to be knowledgable, and asked if I could assist, so I stepped in. I was shocked at the deceit that the admins and Coolcaesar fed to the voters during the straw polls about the policy that the only setup possible for a community was community, city, state. This was totally false, yet the minority at the time (being Eric, the correct party in the matter) was outweighed by the manipulated voters and the deceptful admins. I agree with Eric's arguement that Anaheim Hills or Anaheim Hills, California is the most simple name in referencing the page, as well as the most common, the most basic naming procedure. The infobox was a little weird to begin with, but after a while it grew on me. I understood why he put it there, and after explaining that he performed a census by census tract evaluation of Anaheim Hills, he compressed the valid information into an infobox that was customized just for Anaheim Hills. It states the City it is part of, shows where Anaheim Hills is located within Anaheim, and is titled Community of Anaheim Hills. So, I feel that all of those points of reference will lead to no confusion. He explained how he did this, and why he did this, yet was attacked by Coolcaesar while Will Beback acted as his patrol officer waiting for me or him to break a rule so that we could be blocked, and temporarily silenced. (Even if I made 2 reverts and Ericsaindon2 made 1 in 24 hours on the page, we were suspended for 3rr, even though all WIll did was add the two totals up-which was totally unfair)
And about those copywrighted images. You know, and I know it takes a while to learn Wikipedia, and all of those images were done within days of the creation of his account. The images I downloaded my first week were copywrighted, and I didnt know how that worked, but I fixed them. As I am aware of, Eric has fixed most of them, and allowed others to just be deleted, and since he was probably learning the way around Wikipedia, I dont see how this could be held against him. If you look at the images he has "recently" uploaded, which is about 50 images, they all had proper tagging, and if they didnt, he fixed it at the admins request.
I urge you not to take the case because its a conflict of ideas, and Eric is trying to prove a well based point, and like other users, he refuses to be manipulated by unture statements that swayed popular opinion, like the admins and involved parties did in this case.
Eric is also very beneficial to other pages, having added 24 infoboxes to cities in Orange County that lacked them previously, and working on the template:Orange County, California to add communities, and reword it. He is an essential party in the Orange County community and city articles. The statement Will Beback made about him making controversial and self promoting edits to other community pages is totally false. I found one instance where he did that on the Anaheim Hills page 5 months ago, and he reverted it due to the opposition. I only see positive change on all the Orange County community and city pages, and positive additions, and none of those edits have created controversy, and all of them were legitamate in those respective articles. This "pet cause" expained by Will Beback is nothing but with the goal to improve the project, and has no basis. Since he has not made any negative edits to the Orange County Community or City articles, the only "pet cause" he could have is positive. A subject ban would be davastating, for Eric has edited all Orange COunty neighborhood articles and cities in good faith, and has done it more extensively than anyone I have yet to see. I do think that the statement "he has an ultimate plot to destroy the community and city articles" is totally nonfactual and unable to be proved, and if that is his goal, he sure is making it difficult for himself with all these constructive edits he has made to these articles.
All this is is a disagreement between two parties who have 2 different views about the ways on the page. It seems to be a debate between Wikipedia Policy (Ericsaindon2) vs. Legal References (COolcaesar). A mediator might be more appropriate than arbitration, because both Ericsaindon2 and Coolcaesar were equally involved in the childish arguement. It would be unfair to suspend him (or not) without suspending the instigator of the problem (the creator of the issue that was not an issue before he brought it up), Coolcaesar. -- OC31113 08:08, 12 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Preliminary decisions

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (4/0/0/0)

Temporary injunction (none)

Final decision Information

All numbering based on /Proposed decision (vote counts and comments are there as well)

Principles

No original research

1) Wikipedia:No original research forbids introduction of information, however well-founded, true and accurate, which results from a user's own analysis of a subject. Only information which can be verified as having been published in a reliable source can be included in a Wikipedia article.

Passed 6-0 05:34, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppets and meatpuppets

2) Whether or not confirmed by CheckUser, a set of users who edit in the same manner may be considered one user.

Passed 6-0 05:34, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Disruptive users may be banned

3) A user who disrupts an article or set of articles may be banned from those articles, in extreme cases from the site.

Passed 6-0 05:34, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Naming convention for places

4) Generally, article naming should give priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (places).

Passed 6-0 05:34, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Findings of Fact

Ericsaindon2

1) Ericsaindon2 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who is confirmed by CheckUser to also edit as OC31113 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and a large number of sockpuppets and anonymous IPs ( Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Ericsaindon2/Evidence#Ericsaindon2 has been using sockpuppets) is alleged to have engaged in tendentious editing of articles which relate to Anaheim Hills.

Passed 6-0 05:34, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Anaheim Hills

2) Anaheim Hills is a community in California located within Anaheim, California. Googling for "Anaheim Hills" returns about 1,270,000 hits. Searches for "Anaheim Hills" are sufficient that they register at Google Trends [12], but are much less than searches for "Anaheim" alone [13]. Some searches for "Anaheim Hills anaheim california" register [14].

Passed 6-0 05:34, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Introduction of original research by Ericsaindon2

4) Ericsaindon2 has introduced material into Wikipedia which is original research, in some instances plainly false "Anaheim Hills is an incorporated community", :incorporated in 1972", "which is run as an independent city", promotion of Cleveland National Forest to a national park, a city, city, city, city, city, possible bogus city seal, [15], and the wealthy hills theory.

Passed 6-0 05:34, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Tendentious editing by Ericsaindon2

5) Ericsaindon2 has engaged in tendentious editing with respect to articles which relate to Anaheim Hills, listing Anaheim Hills as a city, listing Anaheim Hills as a suburb, "major city", city infobox, edit warring, edit warring, and removal of Unreferencedsect tag from original research.

Passed 6-0 05:34, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Disrupting Wikipedia to make a point

6) Ericsaindon2, after the article on Anaheim Hills was moved to "Anaheim Hills, Anaheim, California", made a number of analogous title changes to other articles, some quite disruptive [16]. This included the move of Manhattan to "Manhattan, New York (state)". One supposes the point was to point out the absurdity of the changes.

Passed 6-0 05:34, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

7) Ericsaindon2 has vandalized user pages [17], [18], [19], and [20].

Passed 6-0 05:34, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Dishonesty by Ericsaindon2

8) Ericsaindon2 added Anaheim Hills to Wikipedia:Featured articles [21] and to the talk page [22] when it was not a featured article. See also Comments by party at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Ericsaindon2/Workshop#Dishonesty_by_Ericsaindon2.

Passed 6-0 05:34, 3 September 2006 (UTC)


Remedies

One name

1) Ericsaindon2 is required to choose one username and edit only with that name.

Passed 6-0 05:34, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Ericsaindon2 banned

2) Ericsaindon2 is banned from Wikipedia for one year due to a variety of disruptive activities.

Passed 6-0 05:34, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Ericsaindon2 placed on Probation

3) Ericsaindon2 is placed on Probation. He may be banned for an appropriate time from any article or set of articles which he disrupts. All bans to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ericsaindon2#Log of blocks and bans.

Passed 6-0 05:34, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

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.

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:

  1. ask the enforcing administrator to reconsider their original decision;
  2. request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators’ noticeboard ("AN"); and
  3. 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-en@wikimedia.org).
Modifications by administrators

No administrator may modify or remove a sanction placed by another administrator without:

  1. the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or
  2. 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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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 and bans

Log any block, 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.



Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Ericsaindon2&oldid=1063327679"