Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 00:37, 23 April 2022

Click here to add a new enforcement request
For appeals: create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}
See also: Logged AE sanctions

Important information

Shortcuts

Please use this page only to:

request administrative action against editors violating a remedy (not merely a principle) or an injunction in an Arbitration Committee decision, or a contentious topic restriction imposed by an administrator,
request contentious topic restrictions against previously alerted editors who engage in misconduct in a topic area designated as a contentious topic,
request page restrictions (e.g. revert restrictions) on pages that are being disrupted in topic areas designated as contentious topics, or
appeal arbitration enforcement actions (including contentious topic restrictions) to uninvolved administrators.

For all other problems, including content disagreements or the enforcement of community-imposed sanctions, please use the other fora described in the dispute resolution process. To appeal Arbitration Committee decisions, please use the clarification and amendment noticeboard.

Only autoconfirmed users may file enforcement requests here; requests filed by IPs or accounts less than four days old or with less than 10 edits will be removed. All users are welcome to comment on requests except where doing so would violate an active restriction (such as an extended-confirmed restriction). If you make an enforcement request or comment on a request, your own conduct may be examined as well, and you may be sanctioned for it. Enforcement requests and statements in response to them may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. (Word Count Tool) Statements must be made in separate sections. Non-compliant contributions may be removed or shortened by administrators. Disruptive contributions such as personal attacks, or groundless or vexatious complaints, may result in blocks or other sanctions.

To make an enforcement request, click on the link above this box and supply all required information. Incomplete requests may be ignored. Requests reporting diffs older than one week may be declined as stale. To appeal a contentious topic restriction or other enforcement decision, please create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}.

Appeals and administrator modifications of contentious topics restrictions

The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications of contentious topic restrictions state the following:

All contentious topic restrictions (and 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 arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN"); and
submit a request for amendment ("ARCA"). If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email.

Appeals submitted at AE or AN must be submitted using the 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,^[a] or is no longer an administrator;^[b] 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 arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") and uninvolved editors at the 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 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.

^ The administrator may indicate consent at any time before, during, or after imposition of the restriction.
^ 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.

Appeals and administrator modifications of non-contentious topics sanctions

The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications and appeals state:

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:

ask the enforcing administrator to reconsider their original decision;
request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators’ noticeboard ("AN"); and
submit a request for amendment at the amendment requests page ("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-enwikimedia.org).

Modifications by administrators

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

the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or
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:

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.

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.
These provisions apply only to contentious topic restrictions placed by administrators and to blocks placed by administrators to enforce arbitration case decisions. They do not apply to sanctions directly authorized by the committee, and enacted either by arbitrators or by arbitration clerks, or to special functionary blocks of whatever nature.
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.

Information for administrators processing requests

Thank you for participating in this area. AE works best if there are a variety of admins bringing their expertise to each case. There is no expectation to comment on every case, and the Arbitration Committee (ArbCom) thanks all admins for whatever time they can give.

A couple of reminders:

Before commenting, please familiarise yourself with the referenced ArbCom case. Please also read all the evidence (including diffs) presented in the AE request.
When a request widens to include editors beyond the initial request, these editors must be notified and the notifications recorded in the same way as for the initial editor against whom sanctions were requested. Where some part of the outcome is clear, a partial close may be implemented and noted as "Result concerning X".
Enforcement measures in arbitration cases should be construed liberally to protect Wikipedia and keep it running efficiently. Some of the behaviour described in an enforcement request might not be restricted by ArbCom. However, it may violate other Wikipedia policies and guidelines; you may use administrative discretion to resolve it.
More than one side in a dispute may have ArbCom conduct rulings applicable to them. Please ensure these are investigated.

Closing a thread:

Once an issue is resolved, enclose it between {{hat}} and {{hab}} tags. A bot should archive it in 7 days.
Please consider referring the case to ARCA if the outcome is a recommendation to do so or the issue regards administrator conduct.
You can use the templates {{uw-aeblock}} (for blocks) or {{AE sanction}} (for other contentious topic restrictions) to give notice of sanctions on user talk pages.
Please log sanctions in the Arbitration enforcement log.

Thanks again for helping. If you have any questions, please post on the talk page.

Arbitration enforcement archives

1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18	19	20
21	22	23	24	25	26	27	28	29	30	31	32	33	34	35	36	37	38	39	40
41	42	43	44	45	46	47	48	49	50	51	52	53	54	55	56	57	58	59	60
61	62	63	64	65	66	67	68	69	70	71	72	73	74	75	76	77	78	79	80
81	82	83	84	85	86	87	88	89	90	91	92	93	94	95	96	97	98	99	100
101	102	103	104	105	106	107	108	109	110	111	112	113	114	115	116	117	118	119	120
121	122	123	124	125	126	127	128	129	130	131	132	133	134	135	136	137	138	139	140
141	142	143	144	145	146	147	148	149	150	151	152	153	154	155	156	157	158	159	160
161	162	163	164	165	166	167	168	169	170	171	172	173	174	175	176	177	178	179	180
181	182	183	184	185	186	187	188	189	190	191	192	193	194	195	196	197	198	199	200
201	202	203	204	205	206	207	208	209	210	211	212	213	214	215	216	217	218	219	220
221	222	223	224	225	226	227	228	229	230	231	232	233	234	235	236	237	238	239	240
241	242	243	244	245	246	247	248	249	250	251	252	253	254	255	256	257	258	259	260
261	262	263	264	265	266	267	268	269	270	271	272	273	274	275	276	277	278	279	280
281	282	283	284	285	286	287	288	289	290	291	292	293	294	295	296	297	298	299	300
301	302	303	304	305	306	307	308	309	310	311	312	313	314	315	316	317	318	319	320
321	322	323	324	325	326	327	328	329	330	331	332	333	334	335	336	337	338	339	340
341	342

108.34.231.7

Blocked 3 months as a standard admin action. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:04, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

Request concerning 108.34.231.7

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: FDW777 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 07:36, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: 108.34.231.7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Editing of Biographies of Living Persons

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it

14:35, 5 April 2022 Adds text to the Patrisse Cullors reading In 2022, she was involved in purchasing another Southern California home for nearly $6 million using donation cash. At best highly misleading, since it wasn't purchased by her.
02:34, 18 April 2022 Claims The culprit, from the documents unearthed, is Mrs. Patrisse Cullors and she is being directly accused as the beneficiary of over $6 million dollar homes with misused BLM funds.
00:28, 8 April 2022 Using Reddit for negative claims about a living person
06:15, 18 April 2022 Claims leaving standard DS warnings are harassment
06:11, 18 April 2022 Curiously, despite the above sees fit to edit war to retain their unwarranted comments on my talk page
06:17, 18 April 2022 More edit warring on my talk page
01:13, 19 April 2022 More edit warring on my talk page

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

n/a

If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)

Notified

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I will explain the problem as simply as I can, summarising what Snopes say (it's already covered at Black Lives Matter Global Network Foundation#Real estate and salary dispute).

In April 2021 Patrisse Cullors, founder of Black Lives Matter was accused of purchasing several properties using money donated to Black Lives Matter. These accusations were false, as she has significant indepdent sources of incom (this is already covered in her article). In April 2022 it was revealed the Black Lives Matter Global Network Foundation had spent $6million on a property. There is no direct suggestion in any reliable reference of wrongdoing by Patrisse Cullors in relation to the latter. Despite this being explained repeatedly and at length (I haven't included any Patrisse Cullors talk page posts as diffs, since it's pretty much every post that shows they don't get it), the IP editor still maintains their position (see diff#2) that an accusation of wrongdoing must go in the Patrisse Cullors article.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified

Discussion concerning 108.34.231.7

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

Statement by 108.34.231.7

Statement by (username)

Result concerning 108.34.231.7

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.

Not so sure DS is useful for an IP, even if allowed (WP:NOTHUMAN). I blocked the dynamic but seemingly stable IP for three months for DE/BLP issues, as a standard admin action. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:00, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Stix1776

Stix1776 is indefinitely banned from circumcision, broadly construed, and may appeal this after 6 months. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 00:37, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

Request concerning Stix1776

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: MrOllie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 12:40, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Stix1776 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gender and sexuality#Standard_discretionary_sanctions - Talk:Circumcision has carried a Ds/talk notice template for this case for some time.

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it

First of all, I can't link directly to diffs of some of these because much of the talk page history was deleted because of an attempted outing of KlayCax by Stix1776. Please see the history of Talk:Circumcision starting on 3 Feburary for deleted edits, as well as Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/KlayCax for more deleted material. I'll supply the timestamp on the comment where I cannot supply a diff.

"But, you know, I can quote Wiki policy and discuss sources all day, and it won't change your opinion because you're not here to build an encyclopedia. At some point, you'll be blocked from Wikipedia for these behaviors." 02:51, 5 February 2022 (UTC) Gratuitous personal attack on KlayCax
"I'm going to come out and say it. You're editing and language style is too similar to KlayCax, and I'm officially reporting this as a sockpuppet account. Your editing history is incredible suspicious." 01:47, 5 April 2022 (UTC) Baseless accusation of OntologicalTree, Battleground mindset
5:53, 14 April 2022 (UTC) "This is clearly has nothing to do with "trimming the lead" and everything to do with KlayCax's clear POV with circumcision. I've seen too many edits where KlayCax unabashedly lies and misrepresents the sources to portray circumcision positively to believe that they genuinely care about the quality of this article. Why insist on removing every small source fact critical for circumcision unless you have a serious POV problem??" - more personal attacks on KlayCax
11:29, 19 April 2022 (UTC) " I've asked you multiple times where the OR word salad ... Clearly this is POV pushing. ... That this is regularly ignored speaks volumes of the confidence of KlayCax and defenders." More personal attacks on KlayCax

If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)

Gave an alert about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on 16:32, 14 April 2022

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

There has been a lot of WP:BATTLEGROUNDing on Talk:Circumcision over the last few months. Full disclosure, I've been the target of a bit of this (I would not consider myself a neutral party), but KlayCax has been the target most often. The personal attacks, attempted outing, and the reverting on vague or nonexistent grounds (see Talk:Circumcision#Edits_warring_and_WP:BOLD for example) has been getting worse and worse. I think we need a sternly worded warning, if not a topic ban for Stix1776.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

notification

Discussion concerning Stix1776

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

Statement by Stix1776

It should be noted that I'm not the only one saying that KlayCax's behavior could merit a block. He's someone who's 49% of edits are circumcision related (I did some analysis in Excel), and 18% are reverts or reverted. The article just lost good article status, and the dispute tag I put up is mostly filled with his OR. Multiple editors have agreed with my concerns and have rolled back some of his edits, only for KlayCax to revert restore himself [1] [2]. I counted KlayCax adding 146 word additions to the lead, mostly regarding religious justification for circumcision (I use the Who Wrote That app), but he wants to remove a few literally remaining words ethics and non-American disagreement with the procedure to "trim the lead".

I think it's fair that MrOllie's quotes are put in context:

"I've asked you multiple times where the OR word salad of in these situations, questions surrounding prophylactics, bioethics, group rights, and religious freedom have been brought up" comes up in the source, and you refuse to answer." Perhaps I lost my cool and I apologize. But am I wrong that repeatedly not answering good faith questions is WP:TENDENTIOUS editing? Would someone mind actually looking at that source?

"Please can we have some mediation for all the controversy in this article. That this is regularly ignored speaks volumes of the confidence of KlayCax and defenders}"

Again, I apologize if I lost my cool. But I would really like some way for this article to move on past obvious content problems that's spelled out in Talk:Circumcision#Community_reassessment and my dispute tag, and I've often requested alternative dispute measures (not that I'm knowledgeable about them). I don't really want to stay on this article, and frankly I really liked it in November.

" I've seen too many edits where KlayCax unabashedly lies and misrepresents the sources". Why not actually add the sources I put in? [3]

"I'm going to come out and say it. You're editing and language style is too similar to KlayCax, and I'm officially reporting this as a sockpuppet account. Your editing history is incredible suspicious". I don't see why me actually reporting suspected sockpuppetry is much different to KlayCax, who just reverts against multiple editors while claiming sockpuppetry. Also I'd just take the topic ban if someone could please check Cblackbu1, because the deleted social media account and KlayCax had literally the same link in edits just a few days apart, several times. (Sorry is this WP:OUTING?)

I'm not going to blame anyone if they stop reading after this, but I have a collection of diffs where KlayCax removes sourced information that he doesn't like, with no explanation: literally he doesn't like the CDC as source [4], "throughout society..." [5], the quote in the reference [6]. His handful of recent edits that I reverted in Circumcision and law are worrying.

Again, I apologize if I was too direct. I'm not saying it's an excuse, but I got a similar treatment from an older editor while an admin watched [7], so I assumed this was OK.

Sorry I'm definitely pushing past 500 words now. I earlier read WP:WIAPA and it doesn't seem to mention mentioning POV issues. If that's the case and I'm wrong, and sorry and I'll not do this anymore.

Sorry again to rope this editor in. I disagree with him a lot but I respect him. This is the language I see that makes me think that it's OK to call out obvious POV issues [8].

Lastly regarding the Outing, it wasn't intentional. It's not obvious that linking an anonymous social media account (similar to 4Chan but not 4Chan) to another editor would be outing. I apologized before and I'll apologize again. But frankly it obviously wasn't malicious.

Last last (really sorry), only points 3-4 of MrOllie's points happened after I was made aware of discretionary sanctions.

Statement by Prcc27

Saying you are going to report someone for being a sock puppet does not necessarily seem like a personal attack. As Stix1776 noted, most of the incidents in this report occurred before they were warned about discretionary sanctions. Consequently, this report may be premature. Finally, I would hope that if Stix1776’s actions are being scrutinized, that we also look into other problematic edits on the article and talk page by other users: edit warring, unexplained edits/reverts, personal attacks/incivility, etc. This would help put things into perspective. Prcc27 (talk) 20:47, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by KlayCax

"I've asked you multiple times where the OR word salad" of in these situations, questions surrounding prophylactics, bioethics, group rights, and religious freedom have been brought up" comes up in the source, and you refuse to answer."

I'm still not sure why you're blanketly reverting that sentence. I've repeatedly stated (for the past four months) that prophylactics refers to the debate within the science community over its efficacy in the prevention of pathologies, religious freedom and group rights refer to its intersection with those subjects, and bioethics refers to the debate over whether it is ethical to perform (usually routine) in given situations. All of which are repeatedly and extensively sourced throughout the article. See Cagaanan, 2011; Pinto, 2012; Cohen-Almagor, 2020 in the circumcision article for just a few examples.

There's absolutely and clearly nothing problematic about the sentence. I'm perplexed about what you're even contesting. Are you stating that there the debate isn't about disputes over its prophylactic efficacy? That it has nothing to do with questions surrounding religious freedom, group rights, consent, and therefore ethics?

"His handful of recent edits that I reverted in Circumcision and law are worrying."

What part of my edits were specifically concerning?

" Why not actually add the sources I put in? I'm not going to blame anyone if they stop reading after this, but I have a collection of diffs where KlayCax removes sourced information that he doesn't like, with no explanation: literally he doesn't like the CDC as source, "throughout society..." , the quote in the reference. His handful of recent edits that I reverted in Circumcision and law are worrying. "

First of all, all of those changes were extensively explained in the edit summary:

Added a section for Samaritanism 2.) Flipped evidence/side effects and positions in the lead for better flow. 3.) The CDC recommended universal (although with consent) circumcision amongst American males in 2014 due to HIV/AIDS. So I removed an outdated reference in the lead saying "none" recommended it. 4.) Made a few other minor changes.

It wasn't a removal of sourced material "that I didn't like." Both the World Health Organization and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have come out in favor of circumcising all males (mainly due to the belief that circumcision acts as a partial prophylaxis against HIV/AIDS transmission and seroconversion) after Clayden and Lissauer, 2011 was published. Because of this fact, it should be profoundly obvious why I removed that quotation from the article: the information had been indisputably rendered outdated.

Multiple editors have agreed with my concerns and have rolled back some of his edits

In what context?

"But he wants to remove a few literally remaining words ethics and non-American disagreement with the procedure to [supposedly] trim the lead."

That's not at all what the edit you reverted does. (Editors can see more information about the changes made here.)

"Also I'd just take the topic ban if someone could please check Cblackbu1, because the deleted social media account and KlayCax had literally the same link in edits just a few days apart, several times."

Like the other people you have repeatedly and without evidence accused me of being, I am not Cblackbu1 and can verify myself if requested. In fact — if he wants it to be done — I'd be okay with having another checkuser request performed against me and that account to verify that it is not mine. I would respond more on the matter and examples he gave, but I'm unfortunately aware that my response to him can't be over 500 words. However, I'll finish off by stating that Stix1776's repeated ad hominem claims that I have an "overwhelming pro-circumcision" bias are easily disproven through a simple look at my edit history. See here and here for just two examples of edits of mine showcasing anti-routine circumcision perspectives.

His repeated insults and attacks on me are completely out of hand. KlayCax (talk) 22:37, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would be perfectly okay undergoing another CheckUser request, if requested, and can verify my identity if needed.

I am not Cblackbu1. KlayCax (talk) 22:49, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Stix1776

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.

Agreed that an indef ban from circumcision is at minimum necessary. What a mess that talkpage is. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:17, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the delay, RL hit me in ways I wasn't expecting today. Should be able to deal with this in a couple hours. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:27, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Without comment on the merits (because I can't), I would note this is pretty much impossible to determine unless you have the Oversight bit, which Blade has, but most admin do not. This is due to so much being suppressed rather than RevDeled. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:04, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(asked to comment by Blade) - it was suppressed because they were attempting to link KlayCax to off-wiki individuals and accounts; I did check but there's nothing that could have simply been RD'd. (please ping on reply) Primefac (talk) 08:38, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Dennis. @The Blade of the Northern Lights: if you've got enough evidence based on what you can see feel free to do the ban. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:50, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

[1] The administrator may indicate consent at any time before, during, or after imposition of the restriction.

[2] 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.

[a]

[b]

@@ Line 67: / Line 67: @@
 ==Stix1776==
+{{hat|Stix1776 is indefinitely banned from circumcision, broadly construed, and may appeal this after 6 months. [[User:The Blade of the Northern Lights|The Blade of the Northern Lights]] ([[User talk:The Blade of the Northern Lights#top|<span style="font-family: MS Mincho; color: black;">話して下さい</span>]]) 00:37, 23 April 2022 (UTC)}}
 <small>''This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. <br />Requests may not exceed 500 [[Word count#Software|words]] and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.''</small>
@@ Line 180: / Line 181: @@
 *:(asked to comment by Blade) - it was suppressed because they were attempting to link KlayCax to off-wiki individuals and accounts; I did check but there's nothing that could have simply been RD'd. {{ppor}} [[User:Primefac|Primefac]] ([[User talk:Primefac|talk]]) 08:38, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
 *Agree with Dennis. {{ping|The Blade of the Northern Lights}} if you've got enough evidence based on what you can see feel free to do the ban. <b>[[User:Callanecc|Callanecc]]</b> ([[User talk:Callanecc|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Callanecc|contribs]] • [[Special:Log/Callanecc|logs]]) 00:50, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
+{{hab}}

v t e Noticeboards
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles and content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Wikipedia noticeboards