If anadministratorblocksa user basedoninformationtowhichnotalladministratorshaveaccess,thatinformationshould be submittedtotheArbitrationCommitteebeforetheblocktoensurethattheinformationisrecordedintheeventofanyappeal.<refname="nonobvious">Administratorsarealsoencouragedtodothesamewheretheirinterpretationofon-wikievidencemightnotbeobvioustoanadministratorreviewinganunblockrequest—forinstance,a[[Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry|sockpuppetry]]blockjustifiedbysubtlebehavioral"tells".</ref>Evidencesupportingtheseblocksmust be madeprivately availablebytheblockingadministrator to anyuninvolvedadministratoruponrequest(forthepurposeofpeerrevieworappeal). Intheevent that theblockingadministratorisunavailabletotransmit the evidence,theArbitrationCommitteewilldoso. Theseblocks [[Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard/Archive_13#Special_Circumstances_Blocks|typicallyshould{{em|not}}bemarked]]as"appealableonlytoArbCom"and are reviewablebyanyuninvolvedadministrator.
Iftheblockingadministratorisunwilling to sharethisevidencewithanyuninvolvedadministratoruponrequest,theadministratormaynotissueablock. The community has rejected the idea of individual administrators acting on evidence that cannot be peer-reviewed. Instead,theadministratorshouldrequestactionfromtheArbitrationCommittee,orfromtheCheckuserorOversightteam,[[Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard/Archive_13#Special_Circumstances_Blocks|asappropriate]]. Theseeditorsarequalifiedtohandlenon-publicevidence,andtheyoperateunderstrictcontrols.
Aseparatesetofrequirementsapplyto administrators holding checkuser or oversightprivileges. Those administrators may block users based on non-publicinformationaccessibleonlytocheckusersandoversighterswithoutemailingtheArbitrationCommittee. Thismayinclude information revealed through the CheckUser tool, edits that have been suppressed ("oversighted"), and informationrecordedinthe[[Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard/Archive_13#Special_Circumstances_Blocks|checkuser-en-wporpaid-en-wpVRTSqueues]]. Theseblocksareconsidered to be CheckuserorOversightactions,asappropriate,althoughthetechnicalactiontoissueablock is an administrative one. All such blocks are subject to direct review by the ArbitrationCommittee.
+
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 [[Wikipedia: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 [[Wikipedia:Checkuser|Checkuser]] or [[Wikipedia: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 [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee|Arbitration Committee]].