Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Rodhullandemu

Following further developments the Committee has determined that Rodhullandemu remain blocked until further notice. The editor may ask the Committee for periodic reviews of this decision by email.

Supported by: Casliber, Cool Hand Luke, David Fuchs, Elen of the Roads, Iridescent, Jclemens, John Vandenberg, Kirill Lokshin, Newyorkbrad, PhilKnight, Risker, Roger Davies, Shell Kinney, Xeno

For the Arbitration Committee,  Roger ^talk 21:39, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Main case page (Talk) — Evidence (Talk) — Workshop (Talk) — Proposed decision (Talk) Case clerks: Tiptoety (Talk) & Salvio giuliano (Talk) Drafting arbitrators: Casliber (Talk) & Newyorkbrad (Talk)

Case Opened on 04:16, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

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

This case is currently open; as such, no changes to this page should be made. Any additions should be reverted: if you have evidence you wish the Arbitrators to consider, post it at the evidence page.

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. Initiated by Hasteur (talk) at 00:37, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Involved parties

• Hasteur (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
• Rodhullandemu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• Rodhullandemu

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 13#User:Rodhullandemu
• Notice from ArbCom of de-sysop

Statement by Hasteur

As a uninvolved member of the Wikipedia community, I have observed the contentious editing and accusations that have occured on WP:ANI. After reading through the discussion of the Arbitration Committee's decision to de-sysop Rodhullandemu (and it's firey debate) I was ashamed. After Rhodhullandemu's authorization I am opening this pro-forma case to air the evidence (as claimed by the ArbCom) and to let Rhodhullandemu respond to said evidence. I am aware the WP:BURO says we're not supposed to do process for process's sake, however I do suspect that this line of inquiry won't die down until the full case (as suggested by ArbCom and invited by Rhodhullandemu) is done with.

For the record, I am 100% open to letting someone else (Possibly Elen of the Roads) represent the de-sysop position because I do not feel that strongly about the issue.

Rodhullandemu, you're digging yourself a pit. Please don't make it any larger. You obviously represent the "Give back the Janitor's Keys" side, someone who is familiar with the other side of the discussion should represent that. I know you're very caustic in your discourse, but please demonstrate some of the same good sense that allowed you to be given the keys in the first place. Hasteur (talk) 01:42, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

@To the many respondents and to the people spoiling for a fight: As it appears that the original aggrieved party has elected to withdraw from this process (by instigating their retirement) I see no reason to continue this case. However I do highly recommend a civil RfC to clarify ArbCom's ability to bring cases on it's own behalf (i.e. Without a formal petition as posted on the Requests for Arbitration board) due to this procedure being invoked in this case. Hasteur (talk) 15:05, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

@LHvU It is my understanding that blocks are supposed to be preventative and not punitive. Could you please clarify how blocking RH&E satisfies the preventative formula of this question? To my understanding a "Retired" template is a voluntary "notice" by an editor that they may not be responding as much. Adding the template does not require them to hand over their editing privileges. Please elucidate for me as to why you believe these things as it appears from my prospective to be a case of Administrative Tool Abuse for you to apply the block for the justifying reason given. Hasteur (talk) 15:05, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Rodhullandemu

Whereas a neutral position is welcome, I specifically required the ArbCom to defend their indefensible position. My authority was to ArbCom to justify its actions, not for another editor to take up my position, however well-intentioned. Of course, asking a tribunal, however constituted or appointed, to review its own decisions, is fraught with conflict of interest issues. Meanwhile, with the best of intentions, I still require ArbCom to justify itself to the community that elected it, but if they are that confident in their own powers, they will take over this request, and defend themselves to the ultimate benefit of the commmunity. Rodhull andemu 01:09, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

• @Coren: You've already expressed an opinion as to further discussion on this issue, and therefore, to be fair to all parties, you should recuse. Rodhull andemu 01:16, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
• @John Vanderberg & Shell Kinney: You were also part of the original flawed decision, and should therefore also recuse. To do otherwise would not be acceptable to the community at large. Rodhull andemu 01:21, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
• @Other arbitrators: if you voted to desysop me without giving me adequate response to allegations against me, you should recuse. To do otherwise would be fundamentally dishonest, since you've already appeared to have made up your minds. Examine your souls, please, and do the honourable thing. Rodhull andemu 01:35, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
• Get this clear: my desysop was at least contentious. Those who voted for it have failed conspicuously to justify it. I am not going to accept a verdict that might have been acceptable in Stalin's Russia, Mao's China, or today's North Korea, but not here, and now, and today, in the developed world. There are certain basics of justice, however you define that, that exist, and it it is up to us to accept them. If otherwise, we have absolutely no honour of justification to claim to be better than jungle justice. That's really what this is all about. Rodhull andemu 01:45, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

@Hasteur: You're prepared to let the Witchfinder General seem to be unbiased? I do not think so. Rodhull andemu 01:37, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but if someone sticks a knife into me, I'm going to remove it. That is nothing to do with who the person sticking the knife in to begin with is. It's pure self-preservation. Rodhull andemu 01:51, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

@GWHerbert re mails:I have already released them unedited to an uninvolved third party, and Jimmy Wales. For the avoidance of doubt, I have nothing to hide, and I retain the originals as sent to me. Rodhull andemu 01:28, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
@HJ Mitchell: Are you crazy? Admins who combat vandalism as a career do not make friends. Reality, please! Rodhull andemu

Look at the diffs: I left him alone until he started falsfiying sources on Clown. I was prepared to do so. Rodhull andemu 01:48, 2 March 2011 (UTC) 01:30, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

@Jehochman re "without being given a chance to respond in the open": As will become apparent when the email exchanges are made public, not only was I not given a chance to respond either in the open OR in private, when I requested diffs of the case against me, they were not provided, so no such chance ever arose. It will also become apparent that the ArbCom have cited one set of reasons in private for my desysopping, and another set in public. Rodhull andemu 21:10, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

@Malleus: ArbCom isn't interested in content disputes. I invited you to take it to the Talk page, or other WP:DR, but you didn't. Not my problem. Rodhull andemu 00:24, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

• What we have here, in the ArbCom, is the clearest possible case of "power without responsibility — the prerogative of the harlot through the ages", and I, for one, am not prepared to legitimise these tawdry proceedings by my presence. Rodhull andemu 02:32, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Preliminary decisions

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (13/1/1/1)

• Accept; with a reminder that arbitration is not an adversarial proceeding and that nobody presents any position — only evidence and commentary.

  That said, I will not let the case drag on or turn into a mudslinging festival. Only evidence regarding Rod's suitability as an administrator will be examined, and absolutely no tolerance will be extended to personal attacks or bringing up old feuds. — Coren ^(talk) 01:10, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

  • Rodhullandemu: No. There is no reasonable justification for me, or any other arbitrator that voted on the previous motion, to recuse. — Coren ^(talk) 01:26, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
  • HJ Mitchell: Let's not debate merits of the desysop on the request page. — Coren ^(talk) 01:52, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
  • @Ten: Accepting this case on the narrow ground of examining whether Rod should keep the bit or not does not preclude a wider case being opened if a case is made for it. — Coren ^(talk) 12:21, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
  • @Ten, redux: I don't think setting a narrows scope hinders that. Certainly any related matter that has a demonstrable bearing on the desysop can be presented; and none of us would ignore something relevant just because of where the focus lies. The point is, however, that the precipitating incident (which I expect you'd wish a wider case to examine) is only part of the reason for our motion — and not an especially important part at that. It may well bear being examined as an arbitration matter, but given that it only peripherally overlaps with the examination of Rod's administrator status, trying to shoehorn both into a single case would be the the detriment of a proper examination of either. — Coren ^(talk) 02:33, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
• Accept per Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures#Return of permissions to "examine the removal of permissions and any surrounding circumstances." John Vandenberg ^(chat) 01:14, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
• Accept per John. Shell ^babelfish 01:16, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
• Accept With the caveats of Coren above. SirFozzie (talk) 01:17, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
  • I see no reason for the 13 of us who voted to remove the administrative tools on a temporary basis to recuse from the case to determine the resolution on a permanent basis. SirFozzie (talk) 01:25, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
    • I note that Rodhullandemu has retired after his appeal to Jimbo was refused (with Jimbo telling him that the removal of the administrative bit was warranted). I may suggest that we do post the evidence for a period of time anyway, to assuage fears of the community to the process and evidence we used in this case (which is what most people were complaining about, not the action taken), and then courtesy deleted if RHE is indeed retired. SirFozzie (talk) 01:58, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
• Accept; I believe the arbitrators who voted for this desysop committed the committee to a public case, if RH&E wanted one. Cool Hand Luke 01:20, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Carcharoth's comment deserves a read. Myself, I don't think it's desirable (or even possible) to limit the case to RH&E. I do hope RH&E considers NYB's proposed process, however. Cool Hand Luke 03:53, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Recuse. It's better for everyone that I not remain involved with this case. Cool Hand Luke 22:39, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
• Accept per John and Coren. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:23, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
• Recuse Although the procedures do not envisage any Arbitrator being required to recuse during a hearing to examine the removal of permissions following a desysop, I shall be presenting the evidence gathered directly by Arbcom, and would prefer to stick to that role. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:29, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

  Response to Nuclear Warfare - if you prefer, I will post all the emails that the committee sent to Rod as part of the evidence. Rod (or yourself) can post all his replies. I can confirm that there were no emails from third parties connected with this decision. Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:50, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

  Response to Ten of all Trades - no, there was no third party who requested us to look into this. At the point where SandyGeorgia was contemplating filing a RfAR, I advised that the Committee was already looking at this matter. I note your opinions of the process, but with respect to admin behaviour it does not require that a case be filed, or a request for action made, before the committee can act.Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:29, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

• Accept. I admit that I didn't envisage this much drama over what is essentially a motion to prevent Rod from using the buttons during the case. Anyway, I don't seriously believe that voting in favour of this motion necessitates that I have to recuse. PhilKnight (talk) 01:55, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

  Several editors have asked perfectly good questions which merit a reply, but the structure of this page makes it awkward to do so. Apologies if you haven't received a response, and if you copy the post onto my talk page, I'll do my best to reply. My guess is the case will be opened shortly, and from there evidence will be posted, which will hopefully explain a good deal of why the committee acted as it did. In reply to HJ Mitchell's question aimed primarily at Risker, my answer would be that I (and most of the other arbs) voted on the motion to temp desyop before the email correspondence, but the emails created a sense of urgency. Regarding Jehochman's characterisation of what happened, I don't entirely agree. I think Micks's characterisation of "This desysop was the culmination of months, or even years, of feuding, involving a number of 'high status' Wikipedian's, and even other admins. Community processes completely failed to address it, and in the final act, the best ANI could come up with was an interaction ban" is a lot closer. Regarding Rod's analogy to a totalitarian state, and suggesting this isn't the sort of thing that happens in civilised countries, my response is that extending your analogy, you could be perceived as a government official, and there are concerns about how you have acted, and in this context, we have suspended you pending a full inquiry. Contrary to what you say, this is the exactly sort of thing that happens in civilised countries. PhilKnight (talk) 17:28, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

• Accept within the limits of the original private case motion--that is, whether Rodhullandemu is suited for the administrator tools at this point in time. Jclemens (talk) 02:01, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
  • I don't believe there was an "original private case," or at least there should not have been one without any process. It was a level II desysop. See Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures#Level II procedures. This process contemplates allowing a formal decision after the desysop. PhilKnight aptly describes it as a motion to prevent use of the tools until the case is resolved. Cool Hand Luke 02:18, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
    • You're entirely correct; so amended. Jclemens (talk) 02:40, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
  • @Jehochman, that is in inaccurate characterization of what transpired, though not an unreasonable guess. Speculation in the case request page is unhelpful, as the issues will be elaborated in as much public detail as appropriate during the case proper. Jclemens (talk) 15:33, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
  • @LHvU: One argument against suspending the case is that Rodhullandemu has leveled several accusations that have heretofore gone essentially unrebutted by ArbCom. Realize that he's retired on the eve (literally, and he knows it, because Elen told him she would be offline until Sunday) of our posting the full accounting of the evidence that prompted the initial desysop motion. Is everyone who protested against the process willing to retract their accusations against ArbCom? Almost certainly not, I daresay. So, we're left with the choice to be vilified without actually responding, or to be seen to be kicking a retired editor. Jclemens (talk) 01:34, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
    • @LHvU 2: While a formal vote on the matter has not been taken, there is a strong consensus that ArbCom will not release private correspondence without the active consent of the person with whom we were in communication. Whatever the value might be in restoring ArbCom's "image" by releasing the emails in their entirety, the damage to our ability to assure future correspondents that emails will be held in confidence unless they actively consent to their release is certain. Besides, it's not the gentlemanly thing to do, which, as we've said all along, was the point in approaching Rodhullandemu privately in the first place. Indeed, it would be far less sensitive to release the on-wiki evidence, which is a detailed chronology of issues, with links and diffs, going back to 2008. Any Wikipedian with enough time can re-do ArbCom's work on that one. Jclemens (talk) 01:56, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
  • @Xover: Since my last reply to LHvU (above), the committee is in the process of formally rejecting the release of email, either the entire conversation or the ArbCom-authored part of it. Opposition is unanimous among the majority of arbs who've participated in the poll so far. While this was a 'tactical' motion discussing the specific options available to us in this case, I expect it will be formalized in whatever process improvement dialogue happens next. Jclemens (talk) 15:17, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
• Accept, per John and my comments here - Rodhullandemu is entitled to request an examination of the removal of permissions. As regards recusals: in camera discussions constitute a portion of an arbitrator's official service, and regular duties of an arbitrator do not constitute grounds for recusal on related matters. I expect anticipate the case will be limited in scope to the Removal of permissions, the initial discussion of which I participated in an official capacity. –xeno ^talk 02:24, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

  @TenOfAllTrades, when I say "expect", the intended meaning is "anticipate"; anyone is free the suggest an expansion of scope, but at that point I would need to reconsider the expanded scope of the case in line with usual procedures for case acceptance.
  Note also, only the "Motion" portion of the announcement was directly voted on by the (you wrote nine, but I count) thirteen arbitrators; the "Background" was written separately and is one arbitrator's distilling of the evidence presented while discussing the motion, and not necessarily endorsed in its entirety by those who voted on the motion. –xeno ^talk 13:42, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

  @TenOfAllTrades, I've struck the word "expect" and replacing it with "anticipate". The reason I anticipate the case to be limited in scope is because the only issue that was explored during the in camera review of this situation concerned administrative privileges. Proceedings conducted in private are exceptional and as such it was strictly limited in scope to the removal of permissions. While there may be other issues that could benefit from outside intervention, none have been presented for arbitration. I could speculate about what other issues there may be, and whether those issues are suitable for arbitration at this stage, but it's not my place to speculate - if someone feels that there are matters requiring arbitration intervention that cannot be resolved by earlier steps in dispute resolution, that should be explicitly presented, rather than vaguely hinted at. I am not repudiating the background that Roger prepared, but I anticipate it will be expounded during the case and presented as findings of fact so that my (and other arbitrators') individual thoughts on the evidence and its relevance to the holding of administrative privileges will be made clear. –xeno ^talk 15:14, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

  @LessHeard vanU, as regards retirement: As Rodhullandemu has formally invited an inquest into the removal of administrative privileges on 2 March, I think it would be presumptuous to terminate this proceeding simply because he announced his intention to withdraw from the project. Has he indicated that he does not wish the case to be heard? –xeno ^talk 22:19, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

• Comment - not voting to accept or decline quite yet. It is entirely correct that all of the evidence that was considered for the Level II desysop is available onwiki to those who look hard enough, although not all concerning edits/actions have been pointed out publicly at this point. However, I am concerned that moving forward with a full case has the potential to be very harmful to Rodhullandemu. Despite the fact that I do not think he should be an administrator at this time, that does not lessen his value as a person, or as a Wikipedia editor and member of the community. I'm concerned that proceeding in this manner will create a "point of no return". Risker (talk) 02:41, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
• Decline as a public case at this time. Well before the desysopping, I was concerned about some aspects of Rodhullandemu's behavior (including the incident at clown that I discussed with him at the time). Had I been online last Friday night, I would probably have been torn between supporting the motion to desysop, because Rodhullandemu had clearly lost his sense of perspective, and urging some lesser or interim measure in light of his lengthy service and some other considerations. But the one thing that was clear to me was that there are aspects of this matter that should not be discussed on-wiki, much less made the subject of an arbitration case. Days later, despite the good-faith concerns about fair process that have been expressed by several editors I respect highly, the fact remains that the things that were unsuited for public discussion last week are no more suited for public discussion this week. I acknowledge that Rodhullandemu is not seeking to avoid such a discussion, quite the contrary, and it is not my intention to patronize him. However, under all the circumstances, the appropriate way forward is for the committee to advise Rodhullandemu that he may seek reconsideration of the desysopping by contacting us in a few weeks, after the stresses of the moment have passed. I fear that opening this case instead, especially at this time, is likely to lead to an unseemly and unhealthy public spectacle. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:26, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
  • I support NYB's approach if RH&E does. Don't open this too fast. Cool Hand Luke 03:36, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
    • Likewise. –xeno ^talk 03:45, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
      • Also agree. Brad's comment explains, far more eloquently than anything I could say, why the committee acted in the way it did. While I understand why editors such as HJ Mitchell think we should be trouted, we were trying to act compassionately. I accept that we should have anticipated to a greater extent the community reaction, and should have communicated more clearly the desyop was a temporary provision pending a full case, however I honestly believe our intentions were good. PhilKnight (talk) 13:58, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
• Accept as per the stated requirement in the Level II desysopping procedures. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 12:34, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
• Accept: Per Level II procedures. It is crucial however that the case remains focused on on-wiki conduct and doesn't stray invasively into private matters.  Roger ^talk 13:55, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

  @TenOfAllTrades. There has in fact been attempted dispute resolution in abundance, at which significant concerns were aired. July 2010, Nov 2010, Feb 2011 Level II procedures were used because prima facie there were grounds to do so, which I outlined in the background section. A case has now been requested to examine the facts more fully. Roger ^talk 13:55, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

  Emails: In response to various comments, I am implacably opposed to the release by the committee of private emails. My overriding concern is that once we publish an email we open the floodgates to requests for more and more information to be released and this will remove from all our correspondents any expectation of confidentiality. This expectation of confidentiality is, I firmly believe, essential to retain the trust of our many correspondents, particularly when - as often happens - we are corresponding with people who are vulnerable or under stress or hurting. For these reasons, because of the precedent that would be created by release, after many years of not doing so, I believe the bright line must be "no".  Roger ^talk 11:54, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

• Accept per Roger. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 16:23, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
• Accept. - Mailer Diablo 20:13, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Temporary injunction

Interim motion

For this motion, there are 16 active Arbitrators (excluding 1 who is recused), so 9 votes are a majority

Although Risker is currently on the inactive list, she has voted on this motion, so she counts in calculating the majority. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:53, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Should the Rodhullandemu case be opened, the 26 February 2011 motion posted to the Arbitration Committee noticeboard ("Rodhullandemu's administrator status is revoked. He may apply for adminship at a future date by the usual means to the community.") is rescinded and replaced with a temporary injunction suspending Rodhullandemu's administrative privileges for the duration of the case.

Support

1. Proposed. –xeno ^talk 02:59, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
2. If the case is accepted and opened, this is an appropriate action. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:27, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
3. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:33, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
4. Correct. Cool Hand Luke 03:34, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
5. Concur with my colleagues. Risker (talk) 03:36, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
6. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 03:40, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
7. SirFozzie (talk) 03:41, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
8. Shell ^babelfish 04:02, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
9. Fair enough, although the difference between the two formulations is probably too subtle. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 12:34, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
10. No problems with this,  Roger ^talk 13:55, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
11. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 16:23, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
12. Mailer Diablo 20:13, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
13. Following discussion, and comments, including Sandstein's, I now realise this is appropriate. The original desyop was temporary, and should be replaced with this interim injunction. PhilKnight (talk) 21:09, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Oppose

1. I see no compelling reason to do this for mere process' sake. The only effect is semantic, and the net effect is that he is still desysop'ed for the duration of the case. Should there be a reversal of the outcome, it would be appropriate to restore the bit then. We are not a court, where a permanent injunction vs. a temporary restraining order is a meaningful differentiation, and shouldn't strive to emulate one. Jclemens (talk) 05:05, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
2. Jclemens has this exactly right. This is a motion for the sake of... well, I can't quite figure out what purpose it's supposed to serve. It has no effect. — Coren ^(talk) 12:15, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Abstain

As far as I can tell, this doesn't actually make any meaningful difference beyond reclassifying the temporary desyop as a temporary injunction. While I don't object, I'm not entirely convinced this is necessary. PhilKnight (talk) 13:01, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Final decision (none yet)

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

Principles

Findings of fact

Remedies

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

Enforcement

Log of blocks, bans, and restrictions

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.