Wikipedia Arbitration |
---|
Track related changes |
A request for arbitration is the last step of dispute resolution for conduct disputes on Wikipedia. The Arbitration Committee considers requests to open new cases and review previous decisions. The entire process is governed by the arbitration policy. For information about requesting arbitration, and how cases are accepted and dealt with, please see guide to arbitration.
To request enforcement of previous Arbitration decisions or discretionary sanctions, please do not open a new Arbitration case. Instead, please submit your request to /Requests/Enforcement.
This page transcludes from /Case, /Clarification and Amendment, /Motions, and /Enforcement.
Please make your request in the appropriate section:
|
Requests for arbitration
Requests for clarification and amendment
Clarification request: Palestine-Israel articles
Clarification request archived. Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 12:07, 12 April 2022 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Initiated by Shrike at 17:26, 15 March 2022 (UTC) List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request Statement by ShrikeThis regarding following from WP:PIA Editors who are not eligible to be extended-confirmed may use the Talk: namespace to post constructive comments and make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive. Talk pages where disruption occurs may be managed by any of the methods noted in paragraph b). This exception does not apply to other internal project discussions such as AfDs, WikiProjects, RfCs, noticeboard discussions, etc Recently IP added a statement in ARBPIA thread at WP:AE [1] I have removed as it not article talk page but as its one of the "internal project discussions" the post was restored by Bishonen[2] with edit summary "IPs don't get to *file* requests, but are welcome to comment. Please see the big pink template at the top of the page" I ask to clarify does IP comments are allowed in ARBPIA WP:AE/WP:ANI/WP:AN threads if yes wording should be changing accordingly if no then it should be clarified at WP:AE page Note:I have discussed the matter with the Admin but we didn't came to agreement User_talk:Bishonen#You_restore_at_WP:AE
Statement by BishonenPlease see [7]. Bishonen | tålk 17:49, 15 March 2022 (UTC).
Statement by ZeroI think that the ARBPIA restrictions clearly say that an IP should not post at AE, and the apparent contradiction at the head of that page is only because it wasn't updated when the ARBPIA restriction was brought in. However, unlike most noticeboards, AE is tightly controlled by the admins who adjudicate cases and it makes sense to allow them some discretion. So it would go like this: IP posts, someone complains, admins choose to delete the IP's post or allow it to stay. Zerotalk 13:47, 16 March 2022 (UTC) @Barkeep49: You make good points. Maybe it can be written that admins can allow non-ecs to contribute at their discretion, but that explicit permission is needed. Zerotalk 14:26, 16 March 2022 (UTC) Statement by ScottishFinnishRadishIsn't the entire purpose of the Edit Confirmed thing to not have to deal with socks and new users in the topic area? If you have an opinion on an AE situation, you should really already be EC, otherwise how are you involved in the topic area? The situations where someone who is not EC will have a reason to take someone to AE over IP stuff is vanishingly small, and if someone's behavior towards an IP non-disruptively making suggestions at an article talk page is disruptive enough to need AE, then I'm pretty sure that someone will bring the case here. Here are the edits that were removed, and restored recently: [13] Sectarian blame game bullshit, great. And then [14] Oh good, a bunch of sophistry. This is exactly the reason that EC exists, to stop this kind of non-constructive commentary from editors with essentially no on-wiki identity. There are plenty of established editors in the topic area that can take part and argue about it without allowing anonymous people who can't even edit the articles target other editors. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:38, 16 March 2022 (UTC)Statement by AtsmeWhile I don't edit in this topic area, I am familiar with other aspects including IP editors who are emboldened by anonymity. I appreciate what Bishonen made happen relative to IPs, but it doesn't completely eliminate an IP from having a voice...and a very powerful one if they can get an admin to file a case for them as we've experienced in the recent past. I doubt an IP could acquire such help if their position didn't align with WP's systemic biases or pose a threat to an ally; therefore, without closer scrutiny and the right kind of restrictions, we are leaving the door open to WP:POV creep, inadvertent or otherwise, and that's not much of a remedy. We typically welcome IP editing, especially wikignoming and other drive-by edits that improve articles, but we cannot ignore the vast majority of problems associated with IP SPAs, socks and/or meatpuppets. AGF looks great on paper but in practice maybe not so much. In the past, I have suggested some form of admin rotation in controversial topic areas so the same few admins aren't forced to carry all the weight in controversial topic areas, especially those areas subject to DS/AE, but what benefits do we derive by giving random IPs the same access and level of trust to comment in important venues that could negatively affect veteran editors? While we can do our best to AGF, in reality, trust is earned, not deserved. Atsme 💬 📧 15:59, 17 March 2022 (UTC) Statement by AE regular, Dennis BrownI've become quite the regular at AE, although more of a sense of duty, rather than desire, and I've always operated under the assumption that IPs can not file. In fact, I've seen people file on behalf of an IP, which is ok in my book, as they take responsibility for it not being trivial. But at the same time, I've always thought IPs could comment along with the other editors, and over the years, I've found that IPs are more or less as on topic as registered users. Probably less problems, actually, as only the most experienced IPs can find the place. If I'm wrong, I will adapt, but honestly, I don't have any problem with IPs commenting in the "other" section, as long as they are not initiating cases. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:18, 20 March 2022 (UTC) Statement by SelfstudierFor the rest of the places where "formal discussions" may be said to take place, I agree that non-ecps should not participate. At AE, where there is less of a free form discussion and a stricter process, then the admins there should be able to decide that. Selfstudier (talk) 18:32, 20 March 2022 (UTC) Statement by {other-editor}Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should opine whether and how the Committee should clarify or amend the decision or provide additional information. Palestine-Israel articles: Clerk notes
Palestine-Israel articles: Arbitrator views and discussion
There seems to be some agreement among the arbs commenting that was should update the AE language but I'm seeing some disagreement about whether we should update it to reflect that IPs will be unable to comment in some situations or whether we should update it to note that uninvolved administrators have discretion. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:59, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
Motion: Palestine-Israel articlesExtended-confirmed restrictions apply to internal project discussions, and non-extended confirmed editors may not participate at Arbitration Enforcement when the discussion involves topics covered by an extended-confirmed restriction. To clarify this, the text of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Header is modified by replacing
Motion: Extended-confirmed restriction (draft)
The "Extended confirmed restriction" section of the Arbitration Committee's procedures (Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures § Extended confirmed restriction) are amended by appending at the end the following list item:
The following subsection is added to the "Enforcement" section of the Arbitration Committee's procedures:
|
Clarification request: Ryulong
Initiated by Mythdon at 04:52, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
- Mythdon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
Statement by Mythdon
I have a question as to whether the restrictions listed here are still in effect even though the conduction probation (listed here and here) has expired.
Back in September of 2009, I was banned from Wikipedia for six months following this discussion. That ban was followed by a six month conduct probationary period (to which I was blocked indefinitely shortly after that ban expired). During the ban discussion, one of the arbitrators at the time (FayssalF) said here "To clarify for once. The six-month conduct probationary period starts right after the end of the ban (from March 2010 to September 2010). During that same period, Mythdon will be placed under the same current restrictions (details of restrictions can be found at the updated case's page)" (the topic ban listed here here had already been imposed by that time).
I was unblocked in 2012 and back in 2016, I appealed a "voluntary topic ban" to AN, which was closed as rescinded with a consensus of four editors. But since that discussion concerns a "voluntary topic ban", does it address the topic ban listed here?
Based on to run under the current restrictions and FayssalF's clarification, I had read this as to mean that whatever discretionary sanctions that were imposed upon me under the authorization of the conduct probation would automatically expire when the conduct probation expired (and that to run under the current restrictions meant the discretionary sanctions). Having taken another look at it, I had asked about this in the English Wikipedia Discord and they advised me to bring my concerns here.
It's both a general question and relating to my case, and long question short, do discretionary sanctions authorized by conduct probation remain in effect after the expiration of the conduct probation?
—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 04:52, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
- @Worm That Turned: I'm not sure what the policy was regarding discretionary sanctions back when this was originally imposed, but I've had different administrators give conflicting opinions about whether they thought the sanction(s) would remain in force after the probation expired.
- One administrator here said he was sure he did not have the authority to impose sanctions longer than the duration of the probation (in response to my question asking him why he changed a revert ban from "indefinite" to "for the duration of Mythdon's conduct probation". While another administrator at the time (Yunshui) said they "still support the continuation of an interaction ban with Ryulong and a topic ban on Tokusatsu-realted pages for a six month probationary period.". While the imposing administrator (Fritzpol, who's now retired) said "When your conduct probation is over, you can ask me for a review and I'll look into it.". While FayssalF's clarification here as well as the remedy here (that I mentioned earlier), doesn't specify whether the "current restrictions" included the discretionary sanction(s) or not.
- It's conflicting clarification that I'd gotten between 2009 up until my 2012 unblock, even though the case itself doesn't mention whether the sanctions remain in force or not. But based on your clarification as well as the clarification I received over Discord (where I was advised by an arbitrator to bring my concerns here) and having read WP:ACDS, it sounds like the discussion here didn't actually revoke this topic ban and that this does remain in force under current policy.
- Either way, if there's a motion along these lines, I'd be okay with just the topic ban portion being superseded (even if the interaction ban remains in force thereafter). The main concern for me (if applicable) is to have the consensus here reflected/shown on the case itself. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 02:09, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
- All of that answers that questions. Thanks. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 11:50, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
- @Worm That Turned: Have noted the motion. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 17:15, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
- All of that answers that questions. Thanks. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 11:50, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
Statement by {other-editor}
Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should opine whether and how the Committee should clarify or amend the decision or provide additional information.
Ryulong: Clerk notes
- This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).
Ryulong: Arbitrator views and discussion
- I've spent a little time looking, and I don't believe the sanctions imposed by Fritzpoll (noted here) have been rescinded. Equally, this appears to have been largely settled in 2015 by motion, with no further issues - so I would happily support a motion to vacate those sanctions. I'd like to hear other thoughts before proposing one though. WormTT(talk) 08:52, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
- I concur with WTT's assessment of the situation. Primefac (talk) 09:31, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
- I also agree with Worm. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:53, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
- I concur with Worm that the sanctions are still in effect. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 18:00, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
Motion: Mythdon restriction lifted
Mythdon's topic ban from editing any page that falls under WikiProject Tokusatsu (including articles), and any discussions relating to those pages, broadly construed, is lifted.
- Support
- I believe we can remove this DS from 13 years ago, especially as all the other items from the case are cleared away. Specifically leaving the IBan in place as I generally don't like lifting them without a specific reason and Mythdon has stated they have no problem with it remaining. WormTT(talk) 13:50, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
- I think my first choice would have just been to archive this with the clarification above. But I'm willing to do this as a second choice. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:00, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
- No longer needed to prevent disruption. --BDD (talk) 19:14, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
- Primefac (talk) 19:28, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
- No obvious issues since 2009 when the restrictions were put in place. --Izno (talk) 00:53, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
- — Wug·a·po·des 01:44, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
- Maxim(talk) 01:58, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
- Donald Albury 12:31, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
- Beeblebrox (talk) 18:48, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Abstain
- Arbitrator comments
Motions
Clerk terms
The Arbitration Committee procedures is amended to add a new section "Clerks" (level 2) and a subsection entitled "Terms" with the following text:
Trainee clerks will have a term of up to 1 year after their appointment as a trainee to be promoted to full clerk. This term may be extended by the Committee.
Full clerks will be asked to confirm their desire to stay a clerk every 2 years, from the date they were appointed as a full clerk. There are no term limits for full clerks.
Arbitrators views and discussion
- Support
- This is really doing two separate, but related, things around the theme of having an accurate portrayal of clerk capacity. The idea behind trainees having a time limit is to provide a gentle push for the trainee, and the clerks training them, towards doing what they need to be promoted. It doesn't strike me as a good idea to have perpetual trainees. The idea behind the clerk term limits idea here is to have a clerk team that remains active and interested in clerking. This provides a natural point at which to say "thanks for your service" if the clerk's interest has faded or wandered in different directions (we are a volunteer project after all). Barkeep49 (talk) 17:46, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
- Noting that I changed the trainee term to 1 year from the 2 that I'd originally suggested. Given that the committee can extend it, this feels like a reasonable length to provide the push and a year presents enough time, even with our diminished case load, for a trainee to get the experience necessary to become a full clerk. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:10, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
- I fully support this, but I'd also like to publicly state that this is not intended to suggest dissatisfaction with any particular clerk or clerks. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:35, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
- Since the Arbs serve terms, I think it also reasonable that the clerks serve terms. I'll echo Beeble that this isn't us being unhappy at the clerks, but rather a reform that I felt we'd rather have in place before an actual issue arose. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 19:13, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
- As noted by others above, this is about having better definition for roles rather than any reflection on serving clerks. - Donald Albury 19:46, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
- Also as above, not about any specific clerk, more about good bookkeeping. I'm not completely sure the whole "trainee" concept is all that useful in a volunteer environment where everybody can self-select into anything - after all, for most other roles we don't really have formal "training", and certainly not a year of it! But I think it makes sense to have terms and keep tabs on activity/interest. Opabinia regalis (talk) 21:38, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
- I am fine with this. --Izno (talk) 00:38, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
- Enterprisey (talk!) 01:15, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
- WormTT(talk) 08:32, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
- Maxim(talk) 12:29, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
- BDD (talk) 14:48, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
- — Wug·a·po·des 17:58, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
- KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 17:59, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
- Primefac (talk) 19:23, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Abstain
- Arbitrator discussion
Community discussion
Requests for enforcement
108.34.231.7
Blocked 3 months as a standard admin action. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:04, 19 April 2022 (UTC) |
---|
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. Request concerning 108.34.231.7
n/a
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.
Discussion concerning 108.34.231.7Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by 108.34.231.7Statement by (username)Result concerning 108.34.231.7
|
Stix1776
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)
- User against whom enforcement is requested
- Stix1776 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search DS 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
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 [15] [16]. 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? [17]
"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 [18], "throughout society..." [19], the quote in the reference [20]. 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 [21], 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 [22].
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)4
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)
- 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)
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)
- 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)
- 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)