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

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 00:28, 8 April 2022 Using Reddit for negative claims about a living person
4. 06:15, 18 April 2022 Claims leaving standard DS warnings are harassment
5. 06:11, 18 April 2022 Curiously, despite the above sees fit to edit war to retain their unwarranted comments on my talk page
6. 06:17, 18 April 2022 More edit warring on my talk page
7. 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]

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.

1. "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
2. "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
3. 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
4. 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]