User talk:Karanth1234

Welcome!

Hello, Karanth1234, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, your edit to Gramanya does not conform to Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy (NPOV). Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or other forms of media.

There's a page about the NPOV policy that has tips on how to effectively write about disparate points of view without compromising the NPOV status of the article as a whole. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Questions page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, click here to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Below are a few other good links for newcomers:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Contributing to Wikipedia
How to edit a page
Help pages
Tutorial
How to write a great article
Simplified Manual of Style
Task Center – need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Go here.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Ekdalian (talk) 17:35, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@EkdalianI have given source which is neutral.Please refer Gaud saraswat brahmin page where you can find Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.I had dragged this to the talk 2 weeks back but didn’t get which is void of neutrality here.These are the case which occurred and cannot be modified. Karanth1234 (talk) 18:12, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of discretionary sanctions

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in South Asian social groups. Due to past disruption in this topic area, the community has authorised uninvolved administrators to impose contentious topics restrictions—such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks—on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, expected standards of behaviour, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on these sanctions. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Ekdalian (talk) 17:38, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not a sock at all

@RegentsPark@User:FylindfotberserkI am not a puppet account at all.I have given all my details on the page.Please revisit this conclusion as the whole edit carried out was based on discussions.I know this caste edit section makes you to believe this as sock but I can defend myself!.I didn’t find any investigation here?! Karanth1234 (talk) 13:40, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@RegentsPark@FylindfotberserkEditing the page constructively cannot be puppets work.You have mentioned sock of a user @Joshpunkarbut investigate this against all parameters.I will be waiting for your investigation.

Regards,

Dr.Karanath. Karanth1234 (talk) 13:48, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@RegentsPark@FylindfotberserkPlease do initiate the investigation and let me defend myself.Not a single vandalism,nor a single personal fight nor a POV push instead I am neutralising the content as per sithush guidelines.So don’t take the decision unilateraly instead give me the chance to prove myself not a puppet sock.Let me know where I crossed my boundaries !.Expecting reply from you both ,these content need to be investigated impartially.

Regards,

Karanth1234 (talk) 14:01, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unjustified block

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Karanth1234 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

See all my edits,IP address,All my discussion were constructive,Every edit was based on discussion with the respective user,Tried my level best to Neutralised the biased content.Based on what I got blocked that too as sock!.Request you to reinvestigate this.As I can observe anyone editing Marathi Brahmin or saraswat Brahmin page will be tagged as sock(Reference:Joshi punkar).This is not correct decision.Please revisit this.I can easily defend myself if investigated.Karanth1234 (talk) 14:10, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I too find it very difficult to believe that you aren't a sock- but yes, others who do the exact same thing as blocked editors will be blocked themselves, see meat puppetry. 331dot (talk) 09:36, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Discussion

You say you've been a Wikipedia editor for the past 12 years here. Given that you edit the exact same articles as Joshi Punekar, it is really hard to believe you're not a sock. RegentsPark (comment) 22:38, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@RegentsParkCent percent I Said it may be till 2013-14 somewhere I have mentioned regarding this in my page please refer it.You must believe that I am no way related to any users.I forgot the user name which I kept at that time so created new one since it is long time elapse.I don’t know which article josh Punekar was editing but I came here to edit due to Gramanya(Refer my chat with Ekdalian,Jonathan and Luke Emily ).The moment they started reverting I started actual research one by one(Refer My Page).I have mentioned my area of interest and current Research.

See my behaviour during my profile and check the contents what I have edited.It May revolve around west coast,Karnataka,Maharashtra.My current research was regarding Gramanya(My Talk between Luke Emily) and by seeing one caste page I found flaws in data(Refer edit).There the editor had used genetic based content and misinterpreted the reference!.The started point it out.

Everything is there infront of you.Use X tool,based on behaviour and all parameters I’ll defend for sure.If I am Sock I need not to defend anything it would have created new account with VPN(Isn’t it?).Rest is on you but check my contributions once(See the time I spent in the talk just as the editor misinterpreted the reference and content).Over to you.

Karanth1234 (talk) 03:08, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@RegentsParkI cannot change the details of my own account page(As It is blocked).I have given my complete details about my usage of Wikipedia regarding when I was there in Wikipedia,When I left and when I resumed back.I have given all my current research,ongoing interest and my name etc.Over to you now.

Karanth1234 (talk) 03:20, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Joshi punekar/Archive

OMG,Cent percent I am no way related to this.I don’t have that much time to create accounts like this to edit a pages in Wikipedia that too for years together(I left Wikipedia somewhere around 2015).Now I understood when I entered contents in gramanya or Marathi brahmin while reverting they were using the word sock!.

I can easily defend my self completely,please proceed towards any level of investigation.

@RegentsPark

Karanth1234 (talk) 03:46, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Recent Edit

@Spinster300I saw your recent reply.Somehow there is some misunderstanding going on here.After Unblock I’ll join the editing process. Many alternate reference are there for that instance.

First Journal about cases and second about Gagabhatt.This reference too can be considered instead of second if you want.

Sarkar, J. (1948). House of Shivaji: (Studies and Documents of Maratha History: Royal Period). India: S.C. Sarkar.page 197.

For that journal shortly I’ll provide the complete reference.Have a nice day. Karanth1234 (talk) 05:26, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@RegentsParkSee many editors are tagging me in the edit process still you have doubt!.Jokes apart,Mine is Zero vandalism just I know to discuss and come up with the fruitful solution.Take the decision soon(I will be there for defence of mine) after Christmas holidays the involvement May reduce due to work.Atleast let me complete the edition of current research!

Karanth1234 (talk) 05:31, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To Do list

Revisit Upudi census, Madhwacharya details. Shenvi and Gaud saraswat different or same(Luke and Jonathansammy) Gramanya(Luke and ekdalian) Current issue of caste census of Karnataka.(Page Karnataka). Karanth1234 (talk) 05:35, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Don’t Revert my edit in the name of sock

@EkdalianI request you not to revert my edits.Just see my request to reconsider the block !,Doubting about sock is their work that doesn’t mean that I am sock here.I will defend this . Karanth1234 (talk) 08:27, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

While blocked, you only have access to this page to request to be unblocked. You should not be using this page for any other purpose than contesting your block. 331dot (talk) 09:36, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@331dotI am

clearly stating that I am not a sock ,on which basis I got categorised under this ?Did I reverted any others data or did I vandalised.I just used talk with the editor and clearly discussed the issues.How come you people consider me as sock!.Isn’t that unilateral decision ?

Karanth1234 (talk) 09:40, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@331dotLet me get the reasons for my block.Editing some page cannot be a reason!.In Wikipedia in which page I have done research there I will edit.

Proper Investigation should be there.IP method or behaviour method,isn’t it? Karanth1234 (talk) 09:43, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Every sock says that they aren't a sock, as that is the whole point. As I said, you also don't have to be the same person as a blocked user to be blocked for meat puppetry.

Please see WP:CHECKME; "On some Wikimedia projects, an editor's IP addresses may be checked upon their request, typically to prove innocence against a sockpuppet allegation. Such checks are not allowed on the English Wikipedia and such requests will not be granted." 331dot (talk) 09:45, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@331dotOk then tell me on which basis they are categorised me as sock then ? Karanth1234 (talk) 09:46, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have already been told this. It may help you if you agree to abandon editing about the topics for which you have been editing and tell us what topics you will edit about instead. 331dot (talk) 09:50, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@331dot Lastly I was discussing about the usage of racial reference was not valid as per the discussion.If you feel like I did wrong let me know.It was Marathi brahmin page.I didn’t edited anything there instead I told one reference was using Racial reference.(Last chat with Lukeemily,Jonathan).Does Wikipedia support racial reference!?

Karanth1234 (talk) 09:53, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have nothing else to say. You may make a new unblock request for someone else to review. 331dot (talk) 09:56, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@331dotOne more thing my account was not reported by anyone instead “RegentsPark” just guessed that I may be sock and without investigation blocked me!.In Wikipedia blocking a user without investigation ! Does it justify the cause? Karanth1234 (talk) 09:56, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is cause, as has been stated; "Given that you edit the exact same articles as Joshi Punekar, it is really hard to believe you're not a sock." If you can give an acceptable explanation as to why you did this if you aren't a sock, please do. I've also said that agreeing to abandon editing about the topics you've previously edited about may help. That is now all I have to say. 331dot (talk) 10:00, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@331dotI was not involved in editing any particular article instead I was just in discussion!.I have edited Udupi,Madhwacharya and List of Gaud saraswat Brahmins(Important persons).

I am sure no one will be including josh punkar would have edited this pages.please recheck ! Karanth1234 (talk) 10:12, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@331dotWhat I can reply?If you tell me to abandon editing a page edited by user who was sock without his editing details how can I reply !!hope you understood my problem here.

Karanth1234 (talk) 10:15, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@331dotYesterday I edited Marathi brahmin page with citation needed and had discussion regarding the content with the editor . Should I abandon that page ? Karanth1234 (talk) 10:19, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not ping me anymore; you should make your case to the next admin who will review your next request. 331dot (talk) 10:23, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@331dotYou denied the request rite but being administrator Atleast tell me the exact page so that I accept to abandon.Without investigation the account gets block and Administrator is supporting this ?.I am professor in esteemed university I can display the link to my profile.Should I ? Karanth1234 (talk) 10:26, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@331dotAtleast tell me the solution for this!I am not a sock,I can go to any level to prove that.I want solution from you. Karanth1234 (talk) 10:29, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have answered this question. You may make a new unblock request for someone else. If you ping me again I will remove your access to this page. I have no other comment. 331dot (talk) 10:44, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There does not need to be a formal investigation if the blocking administrator has good cause to block you, and they do. If they are in error, do as you have been asked. 331dot (talk) 10:46, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@331dotI went through that sock edit list let me abstain from the sock edited page.Atleast Please do accept this as I am unable to get how to prove myself. Karanth1234 (talk) 15:47, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you remove a closed request again, I will remove your access to this page. 331dot (talk) 15:53, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@331dotOkay As told by you I am ready to abstain from editing the sock edited pages.Atleast grant me this opportunity of conditional access. Karanth1234 (talk) 16:36, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked without reason nor proper Investigation

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Karanth1234 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

watchout all my edits and IP address.All my discussion were constructive,Every edit was based on discussion with the respective user.I tried my level best to neutralise the biased content by discussion.Maximum edit of mine was <citation needed> based on what I got blocked that too as sock!.Request you to reinvestigate this.As I can observe anyone editing few pages will be tagged as sock this should not be a reason and is not a correct decision.Please revisit this,I can easily defend myself if investigated but no investigation was carried out instead it is unilateral decision.Hope atleast Wikipedia should support democratic way of investigation. Karanth1234 (talk) 14:10, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Technical and behavioural evidence convincingly connect this account to Madhwahari, at the very least. --Blablubbs (talk) 13:33, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Discussion2

Per WP:BLANKING you may not remove declined appeals for a site wide block until the block is removed. 331dot (talk) 10:58, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@331dotOh didn’t knew that. Thank you Karanth1234 (talk) 11:03, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@331dotI remain abstained in editing the Marathi Brahmin page as this was the only page which I saw in sock editing.Do consider this. Karanth1234 (talk) 13:59, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

@BlablubbsNow who is this madhwahari ?Till now they were telling some other name called josh punkar!.Common man Atleast previous admin told me to abstain from few page editing so that I’ll be unblocked(I questioned the condition as I didn’t edited any page ).What’s happening in Wikipedia! Karanth1234 (talk) 13:40, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Blablubbswhen I saw my edits I came to know that I didn’t edited anything apart from discussion regarding one page !.I need not to drag this matter to this extent to prove myself.I clearly told I was not sock even didn’t understood you people are busy in proving me sock!.Please investigate! Karanth1234 (talk) 13:46, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Completely wrongly categorised

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Karanth1234 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Without any problem from my end I had been blocked,

I didn’t vandalised any page.
I didn’t abused any person.
Always had healthy discussion.
Always used talk page with editors to quote changes or misquote.
Spent two days in studying two books just to improve the article as many things were misquoted(Refer chat page of Gaud saraswat Brahmins)
Reason for block is https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:RegentsPark and sub column SP.
Just a Random speculation https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Fylindfotberserk and subcolumn Joshi Punekar.
Anyone if he writes a genuine content or if he discussion something regarding improving content in some pages they will be blocked .This blocking system has become rampant.Isn’t Wikipedia belongs to everyone,Knowledge sharing isn’t right of everyone ?.This pre assumption is a biggest blunder!.Should I beg to prove that I am not a sock at all?(See my talk page against the user who blocked other admins won’t even consider the edit they will run from the duty).
As per Wikipedia policy to block an individual user there is a proceedure which includes investigation,Warning and then block based on strong evidence.In my case nothing was followed,pure nazi decision.(Proceedure for blocking has been written for your reference)

Karanth1234 (talk) 15:41, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. — JJMC89 (T·C) 22:04, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Being blocked by a Wikipedia administrator typically follows a specific process. Here is an overview of the typical steps involved:

Warning: Before a block is issued, it is common for a user to receive a warning or a series of warnings about their behavior or actions on Wikipedia. These warnings are typically issued by administrators or experienced editors. The warnings serve as a means to notify the user of their behavior that violates Wikipedia's policies or guidelines.
Discussion: If the user continues to engage in behavior that is considered disruptive, an administrator may initiate a discussion on the user's talk page or in an appropriate administrative forum. The purpose of this discussion is to address the user's behavior, provide an opportunity for the user to respond, and gather input from other editors or administrators.
Evaluation: During the discussion, administrators and other editors will evaluate the user's behavior, consider any evidence or diffs provided, and assess whether the user's actions warrant a block. Factors such as the severity and frequency of the disruption, previous warnings, and the user's response are taken into account.
Consensus: A consensus among administrators or involved editors is sought regarding whether a block is necessary and for how long. This is typically determined through discussion, voting, or other consensus-building processes.
Block: If a consensus is reached that a block is warranted, an administrator will impose the block on the user. The block can be temporary or indefinite, depending on the severity of the behavior. Blocked users are typically unable to edit Wikipedia pages or carry out certain actions, although they can still read the content.
Notification: The administrator who issues the block or another involved party will notify the user on their talk page, explaining the reason for the block and its duration. The user may also be provided with guidance on how to request an unblock if they believe it is warranted.

Did anyone followed this Atleast warning ?No chance just I got doubt and block.

Karanth1234 (talk) 04:37, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Steps to Ban a User

@RegentsPark Being blocked by a Wikipedia administrator typically follows a specific process. Here is an overview of the typical steps involved:

Warning: Before a block is issued, it is common for a user to receive a warning or a series of warnings about their behavior or actions on Wikipedia. These warnings are typically issued by administrators or experienced editors. The warnings serve as a means to notify the user of their behavior that violates Wikipedia's policies or guidelines.
Discussion: If the user continues to engage in behavior that is considered disruptive, an administrator may initiate a discussion on the user's talk page or in an appropriate administrative forum. The purpose of this discussion is to address the user's behavior, provide an opportunity for the user to respond, and gather input from other editors or administrators.
Evaluation: During the discussion, administrators and other editors will evaluate the user's behavior, consider any evidence or diffs provided, and assess whether the user's actions warrant a block. Factors such as the severity and frequency of the disruption, previous warnings, and the user's response are taken into account.
Consensus: A consensus among administrators or involved editors is sought regarding whether a block is necessary and for how long. This is typically determined through discussion, voting, or other consensus-building processes.
Block: If a consensus is reached that a block is warranted, an administrator will impose the block on the user. The block can be temporary or indefinite, depending on the severity of the behavior. Blocked users are typically unable to edit Wikipedia pages or carry out certain actions, although they can still read the content.
Notification: The administrator who issues the block or another involved party will notify the user on their talk page, explaining the reason for the block and its duration. The user may also be provided with guidance on how to request an unblock if they believe it is warranted.

Be a good user,Good bye . Karanth1234 (talk) 17:43, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@RegentsPark The following are some of the most common rationales for blocks. As a rule of thumb, when in doubt, do not block; instead, consult other administrators for advice. After placing a potentially controversial block, it is a good idea to make a note of the block at the administrators' incidents noticeboard for peer review. Administrators should take special care when dealing with new users. Beginning editors are often unfamiliar with Wikipedia policy and convention, and so their behavior may initially appear to be disruptive. Responding to these new users with excessive force can discourage them from editing in the future (see Wikipedia:Do not bite the newcomers). Karanth1234 (talk) 07:12, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing you have listed here is a hard requirement. You can continue to argue process, and risk losing access to this page, or you can actually speak to the reason for the block. 331dot (talk) 23:41, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked By misunderstanding(Not a Sock)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Karanth1234 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

This block is not necessary to prevent vandalism as I have read 3 R policy of Wikipedia.I didn’t gave citations for list of people page by mistake as I was unaware of citation to be given to list of people.(I have read the policy) I had edited https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Gaud_Saraswat_Brahmins but forgot to give reference.I have understood that the page which I had edited at last was priorly vandalised and edit warred by many people from past 5 years.Incase if I edit I will be more sensitive while editing those pages.I am not sock this one is clear from my end ,Incase if you find any sock tendency in the near future you can ban me from Wikipedia. Contributions:I can contribute on History of Karnataka and south Asian communities mainly on west coast of coastal Indian I will be much sensitive while editing any pages which has been edit warred by socks prior to this.

Decline reason:

I appreciate your manners and humility, but this is, as you were reminded several unblock requests ago, chiefly a sockpuppetry block, and one that a checkuser has said publicly here comes with very strong evidence (which, to be fair, I cannot review myself as I do not have access to that tool, but I have no reason to doubt their assessment) which would need to be refuted with a lot more than "I am not a sock" (because of course if that worked to get socks unblocked, everyone would do it, and thus our sockpuppetry policy would be toothless). — Daniel Case (talk) 10:03, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Karanth1234 (talk) 03:33, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion with Reviewer

@JJMC89Thank you man,This was really helpful.I didn’t knew the way of appealing block.I was in angry for categorising me as a sock even I am not involved in any such activities. Karanth1234 (talk) 03:36, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked as a sockpuppet

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively as a sockpuppet of User:Joshi punekar per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Joshi punekar. It has been blocked indefinitely from editing to prevent abuse.

Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.

Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.

ST47 (talk) 02:15, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]