Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Header: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
Dreamy Jazz (talk | contribs) update |
Dreamy Jazz (talk | contribs) subst to allow removal of the heading syntax |
||
Line 19:
{{cot|Important: Appeals and administrator modifications of sanctions}}
The [[WP:Arbitration Committee|Arbitration Committee]] [[Wikipedia:Contentious topics|procedures]] relating to modifications of discretionary sanctions state the following:<!-- Last updated 18 Jan 2023 -->
All contentious topic restrictions (and [[#Warnings|logged warnings]]) may be appealed. Only the restricted editor may appeal an editor restriction. Any editor may appeal a page restriction.
The appeal process has three possible stages. An editor appealing a restriction may:
#ask the administrator who first made the contentious topic restrictions (the "enforcing administrator") to reconsider their original decision;
#request review at the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] ("AE") or at the [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]] ("AN"); and
#submit a [[WP:ARCA|request for amendment]] ("ARCA"). If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by [[User:Arbitration Committee|email]].
Appeals submitted at AE or AN must be submitted using the [[Template:Arbitration enforcement appeal|applicable template]].
A rough consensus of administrators at AE or editors at AN may specify a period of up to one year during which no appeals (other than an appeal to ARCA) may be submitted.
=====Changing or revoking a contentious topic restriction=====
An administrator may only modify or revoke a contentious topic restriction if a formal appeal is successful or if one of the following exceptions applies:
* The administrator who originally imposed the contentious topic restriction (the "enforcing administrator") affirmatively consents to the change,{{efn|1=The administrator may indicate consent at any time before, during, or after imposition of the restriction.}} or is no longer an administrator;{{efn|This criterion does not apply if the original action was imposed as a result of rough consensus at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, as there would be no single enforcing administrator.}} or
* The contentious topic restriction was imposed (or last renewed) more than a year ago and:
** the restriction was imposed by a single administrator, or
** the restriction was an indefinite block.
A formal appeal is successful only if one of the following agrees with revoking or changing the contentious topic restriction:
*a '''clear''' consensus of uninvolved administrators at AE,
*a '''clear''' consensus of uninvolved editors at AN,
*a majority of the Arbitration Committee, acting through a motion at ARCA.
Any administrator who revokes or changes a contentious topic restriction out of process (i.e. without the above conditions being met) may, at the discretion of the Arbitration Committee, be desysopped.
===== Standard of review =====
====== On community review ======
Uninvolved administrators at the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] ("AE") and uninvolved editors at the [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]] ("AN") should revoke or modify a contentious topic restriction on appeal if:
# the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process),
# the action was not reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption when first imposed, or
# the action is no longer reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption.
====== On Arbitration Committee review ======
Arbitrators hearing an appeal at a [[WP:ARCA|request for amendment]] ("ARCA") will generally overturn a contentious topic restriction only if:
# the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process),
# the action represents an unreasonable exercise of administrative enforcement discretion, or
# compelling circumstances warrant the full Committee's action.
{{notelist}}
{{cob}}
| |||