| − | If an administrator blocks a user based on information to which not all administrators have access, that information should be submitted to the Arbitration Committee before the block to ensure that the information is recorded in the event of any appeal.<ref name="nonobvious">Administrators are also encouraged to do the same where their interpretation of on-wiki evidence might not be obvious to an administrator reviewing an unblock request—for instance, a [[Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppetry|sockpuppetry]] block justified by subtle behavioral "tells".</ref> Evidence supporting these blocks must be made privately available by the blocking administrator to any uninvolved administrator upon request (for the purpose of peer review or appeal). In the event that the blocking administrator is unavailable to transmit the evidence, the Arbitration Committee will do so. These blocks [[Misplaced Pages:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard/Archive_13#Special_Circumstances_Blocks|typically should {{em|not}} be marked]] as "appealable only to ArbCom" and are reviewable by any uninvolved administrator.
If the blocking administrator is unwilling to share this evidence with any uninvolved administrator upon request, the administrator may not issue a block. The community has rejected the idea of individual administrators acting on evidence that cannot be peer-reviewed. Instead, the administrator should request action from the Arbitration Committee, or from the Checkuser or Oversight team, [[Misplaced Pages:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard/Archive_13#Special_Circumstances_Blocks|as appropriate]]. These editors are qualified to handle non-public evidence, and they operate under strict controls.
A separate set of requirements apply to administrators holding checkuser or oversight privileges. Those administrators may block users based on non-public information accessible only to checkusers and oversighters without emailing the Arbitration Committee. This may include information revealed through the CheckUser tool, edits that have been suppressed ("oversighted"), and information recorded in the [[Misplaced Pages:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard/Archive_13#Special_Circumstances_Blocks|checkuser-en-wp or paid-en-wp VRTS queues]]. These blocks are considered to be Checkuser or Oversight actions, as appropriate, although the technical action to issue a block is an administrative one. All such blocks are subject to direct review by the Arbitration Committee. | + | If a user needs to be blocked based on information that will not be made available to all administrators, that information should be sent to the [[WP:ARB|Arbitration Committee]] or a [[Misplaced Pages:Checkuser|checkuser]] or [[WP:SIGHT|oversighter]] for action. These editors are qualified to handle non-public evidence, and they operate under strict controls. The community has rejected the idea of individual administrators acting on evidence that cannot be peer-reviewed.
An exception is made for administrators holding [[Misplaced Pages:Checkuser|Checkuser]] or [[Misplaced Pages:Oversight|Oversight]] privileges; such administrators may block users based on non-public information revealed through the checkuser tool, or on edits that have been suppressed ("oversighted") and are inaccessible to administrators. As such, an administrative action is generally viewed to be made in the user's capacity as an oversighter or checkuser, although the action itself is an administrative one. All such blocks are subject to direct review by the [[Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee|Arbitration Committee]]. |