User talk:KlayCax

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. You continue to edit war on the Genocide Joe article/redirect. This behavior related to a contentious topic and BLP is unwise -- to say the least. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:40, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is a misunderstanding. See Genocide Joe's talk page. KlayCax (talk) 00:57, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No misunderstanding. O3000, Ret. (talk) 11:50, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, KlayCax. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 16:54, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfully, this was not a wise move. There's being bold, but adding controversial labels (after vast discussion has taken place on such things) to an article designated a contentious topic shouldn't take place without consensus. — Czello ^(music) 14:03, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You do realize you can be blocked for edit warring, even if it is outside of the 3RR, right? Your edit warring at 2024 United States presidential election in Oklahoma is disruptive, especially since it goes against consensus. We decided 4-3 against including Kennedy in the Utah article until he hits 3+ consistent polls at 5%+ average; why would the criterion be any different for Oklahoma? I will give you 24 hours to self-revert. Otherwise, I will likely seek intervention from an admin, whether that be implementing 1RR on the state articles, reporting you for disruptive editing and edit warring, or otherwise. You are part of the reason why 1RR had to be implemented on the main article, I hope we can work together to avoid having a repeat for the state articles. Also, pretty bizarre for you to add Cornell West to the Michigan infobox when he lacks ballot access and 5% polling, and you already know the consensus requires both. That is not “BOLD”, that is a deliberate disruption. Prcc27 (talk) 04:49, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, other users have already called you out for acting in “bad faith” and “POV”-pushing RFKJR into infoboxes [1]. Unfortunately it seems you have decided to ignore our warnings. I think a topic ban for you may be in order. Prcc27 (talk) 05:14, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• 1.) There was never a consensus for 3+ consistent polls at 5%+ average. Esolo5002 briefly suggested it. (If you add me into the count: it's 4-4. Which is a tie. Even if it was 4-3, that's not a "consensus") Note that GreatCaesarGhost stated in the thread what I'm stating now: This is why state level polling is a bad choice - you'll have him listed at some states and not others based on whether third party pollsters choose to poll a state, rather than any objective read on the state of the campaign.
• 2.) If you know anything about me, @Prcc27:, you know that I think that Kennedy is a fucking nut. I'm "passionate" about including him because there's clearly different standards being set on American and non-American articles.
• 3.) The Michigan edit was a WP: BOLD one and I can see how editors could disagree with it. However, both Jill Stein and Cornell West have polled above 5% in Michigan, with the first having officially certified ballot access, so inclusion isn't that ridiculous of a notion. (Many Social Democrats, Muslims, and more, which are overrepresented in Michigan, have extensively negative views of Biden's handling of the 2024 Israeli-Hamas war.)
• 4.) As you can see above: the "edit conflicts" were misunderstandings from other editors. I near exclusively edit on controversial topics. So it's not surprising that my wall is debates over my edits/wording.

I'll revert my edit on the Oklahoma article in the meantime and discuss it on there. Since I know we're traditionally had a pretty adversarial relationship with one another and I don't want that. My intention with my edits isn't to edit war or to annoy you. It's just because we have fundamental disagreements over how Wikipedia should cover several respective topics. I'll message you on the Oklahoma talk page now so we can work something out, @Prcc27:. Thank you! KlayCax (talk) 01:45, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1. I did include you in the 4-3, I’m pretty sure. But regardless, the onus for consensus is on those seeking to include something. By default, RFKJR, et al. should be left out of the infobox, until there is a clear consensus.
2. I do not disbelieve that you are not a fan of RFKJR, but you do seem to be pushing third party candidates as a whole. As much as I would love for third party candidates to get more attention, it is not Wikipedia’s place to promote them unduly. Especially when we already agreed on a inclusion criteria on when we should include them.
3. Is Cornell West *averaging* 5%? If having one 5% poll was the threshold, the infobox could get quite crowded with minor candidates that have virtually no shot at actually winning 5%. Regardless, you have been told multiple times that ballot access is required for inclusion. No excuse.
4. No misunderstanding. You created a duplicate discussion at the talk page to push hard for RFKJr, and you have repeatedly added him and others to the infobox without consensus. The next time you add a candidate to the infobox without consensus, I will be making a report to an admin. I would also advise against acting “boldly” on infoboxes in the future.

Prcc27 (talk) 05:27, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Prcc27 The area is designated as a contentious topic and KlayCax has had an alert, so it would be an Arbitration Enforcement issue - possibly under the AP topic area as well Doug Weller talk 06:25, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know! Arbitration Enforcement will be the next step then, if this kind of editing continues. Prcc27 (talk) 12:25, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Prcc27:.

1.) By default, RFKJR, et al. should be left out of the infobox, until there is a clear consensus. There was a consensus to add candidates who were averaging 5% in polling and had official ballot access. Both applied to Kennedy here.

2.) Insofar that editors on the 2024 Mexican general election were "pushing" to have third-party candidate Jorge Máynez added. Mexico also has a first past the post election system, Máynez polled at the same numbers Kennedy did, and both candidates had similarly no chance of winning, so the proposal seems common sense to me, as even my compromise proposal has eligibility standards found nowhere else for candidates in other national infoboxes. Coverage isn't an endorsement.

3.) Is Cornell West *averaging* 5%? If having one 5% poll was the threshold, the infobox could get quite crowded with minor candidates that have virtually no shot at actually winning 5%. Yes, of the polls taken so far. At the very least: Jill Stein is averaging 5% and has official ballot access. This situation doesn't apply to any other state. So there's no risk of the infobox being overcrowded with minor candidates if we include one or both of them.

The next time you add a candidate to the infobox without consensus, I will be making a report to an admin. The consensus was polling with an average of 5% + official ballot access. Both applied here.

I would also advise against acting “boldly” on infoboxes in the future. This sort of vague threatening as a muzzling technique is uncalled for. None of my edits violated Wikipedia policy.

I've been entirely nice to you so I'm unsure what you have against me. (I've never written anything similar back to you.) And I honestly don't want to keep doing this on every article we mutually edit. KlayCax (talk) 15:13, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1. Where was that consensus made..? As you already know, there was a discussion on Utah which seemed to lean in favor of an additional consistent polling criterion, and there was also this discussion which OP specifically said aggregates, but we never tackled whether to use aggregates, consistent polling, or just any polling in that section.
2. Nobody said you “endorse” RFKJR, but you are unduly pushing third party candidates in the infobox, in some cases even when they have no ballot access in the state.
3. Cornell West’s polling average in Michigan is below 5%; he only had one 6% poll in the state. And Jill Stein has not polled at 5% in MI at all. Do not gaslight me! Either way, you clearly knew that West does not have ballot access in the state, and you still pushed him in the infobox. I told you, you shouldn’t be bold in the infobox as advice and a courtesy, not a threat. When you are adding candidates that have less than 5% polling and no ballot access and you have already consistently been reverted for adding candidates that do not meet one or both requirements– that is disruptive editing, not BOLD editing. You are welcome to make edits that are actually compliant with WP:BOLD, but you never welcome to disrupt Wikipedia. Your confusion on what counts as “BOLD” can get you banned, and it is best to avoid making unilateral major changes to the infobox if you have already been reverted several times for similar edits.

Prcc27 (talk) 18:01, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Please see WP:CAREFUL.) Prcc27 (talk) 21:01, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

and there was also this discussion which OP specifically said aggregates. In terms of averages, yes, but that's far from a consensus. Even so: Kennedy surpassed that.

When you are adding candidates that have less than 5% polling and no ballot access Jill Stein has ballot access and was averaging 5% in the state, yes. You can see here that they gave it 8% among African-Americans voters and 5% among voters overall in Michigan. I don't think we're in danger of a similar situation or circumstance happening anywhere else. The edit was also a self-pronounced WP: BOLD one. Stein definitely meets the criteria. At the time, West was claiming ballot access in Michigan, although he seems to have walked that back. Both the polling statistics and ballot access were met at the time. (For Stein; and, briefly, it appeared, West.)

You can see the poll above, @Prcc27:. Polling was performed. However, it was listed on FiveThirtyEight at the time (nor the article) so I can see how you missed it. It was a miscommunication as you can see above.

Hope that makes sense. Thanks! KlayCax (talk) 13:41, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I literally can’t access that paywalled site. But based on the polls included in the actual Michigan Wikipedia article, West is well below 5% when you average all of the polls on our article. Jill Stein has zero 5%+ polls according to our Wikipedia article. Prcc27 (talk) 18:31, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's not been a discussion on what aggregation means in this context.

However, a candidate could go -> 1%, 3%, 2%, 1%, 2%, 1%, 1%, 2%, 1%, 2% |massive event happens|, 5%, 12% for instance and still be under 5% in both median and mode. KlayCax (talk) 12:31, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Or maybe the 12% poll would be an outlier..? That is why we take an average of several polls, so no one poll puts a candidate over the threshold. The point is, you knew the consensus, and ignored it. You know what an average or aggregate means; you’re not fooling anyone but yourself. I see no reason to proceed with this conversation any further, you have been warned, and next time you disrupt the presidential election articles, you will be reported. Simple. Prcc27 (talk) 17:50, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The consensus you're talking about doesn't exist, @Prcc27:. Your consistent rudeness against me is unappreciated. KlayCax (talk) 11:04, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am wondering where you got the source that Thomas Crooks was alleged to be center-left or a centrist by classmates. Almost all said he was conservative, some said he didn't talk about it with them. None said anything like that. Not in the sources provided, either. Personisinsterest (talk) 03:14, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here, here, and here, among other sources. Multiple individuals have claimed that he expressed a dislike of Trump, was COVID-19 conscious and admired Fauci, among other claims.

It would be best if we left it out of the article altogether, @Personisinsterest:. KlayCax (talk) 21:27, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fox News isn't a reliable source, but luckily I found a Spectrum News article [2]. Being conscious of COVID doesn't suggest political leaning. The The Guardian article you cited does say the recollections vary, but never said that they were contradictory. It only cited sources that said he was conservative or didn't talk about politics with them. No more than one source said he didn't like Trump. To the contrary, at least two sources said he did support Trump. No one ever said he admired Fauci. No one explicitly said he was a liberal, centrist, or was center-left.

One classmate said he was slightly right leaning. Many said he was conservative, some said that he liked Trump. Some said he didn't talk about politics with them. One said he didn't like Trump.

We should mention it, no matter how seemingly contradictory. His political views are very important to consider in the context of him shooting a major politician. They are widely reported by the media because they see this connection. We can't just write it all off because you see the claims as contradictory. Personisinsterest (talk) 21:42, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's obviously contradictory that some have stated that he was COVID-19 conscious, admired Fauci, and disliked Trump, others have described him as a centrist, and others as conservative.

WP: HEARSAY, WP: BLP, and other policies obviously apply here, and it's frequent for political assassinations to take actions without any consideration of politics.

None of this belongs in the article. KlayCax (talk) 21:50, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No one said he was a centrist, including your supposed sources. And saying being COVID-conscious represents political leaning is original research unless a source connects the dots. But I guess it is contradictory with people saying he liked or didn't like Trump. But he's obviously a conservative, and no one has disputed that. Some conservatives don't like Trump, it doesn't cancel out. If allowed in Wikipedia policy, it is worth talking about for the reasons above. Personisinsterest (talk) 12:20, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't read Fox as it is not RS. I saw nothing in your other two cites or any other RS that indicated he was anything but conservative. As for disliking Trump, I think all of the VP possibilities said bad things about Trump, as well as many Republican senators. Really bad things. That doesn't mean they are on the left. And only extremists were not Covid-19 conscious. O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:53, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The classmate described him as left of center. That's what he claimed. We don't know his ideology. President Biden has stated it, the FBI has stated it, his peers can't agree on his ideology. No, we should not put it in Wikivoice. @Objective3000:. It should be absurdly obvious by now that the reports of peers are heavily contradictory. This needs to go to RFC. But it would be a clear violation of Wikipedia policy to reinstate it, in my view.

This is all hearsay and speculation. KlayCax (talk) 21:56, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I just looked through the sources again and don't see left or center. O3000, Ret. (talk) 22:05, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's in the Fox News interview. At the very least, he shouldn't be identified as conservative. KlayCax (talk) 22:06, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All of this could of course be added if it's confirmed. For now, it's absolute speculation, and it's widely irresponsible that people want to include unverified claims that he's left or right-wing into the article.

Many times: these type of things aren't even about policies. (Reagan's shooter being obsessed with Jodie Foster. Just to give one example.) It's obvious we should wait. KlayCax (talk) 22:07, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm surprised you would even mention Fox. I wouldn't be surprised if Fox said he was a Communist, transexual, illegitimate son of Biden. They have suggested Biden is a demon from Hell and Trump was appointed by God. Personally if I had to guess, I'd guess he was just looking for a famous suicide and Trump was a convenient, nearby target. As far as waiting, I don't think the article should even exist for a few months. But if folks here insist that it exists, and we are going to talk about social media crap, perhaps we need to also talk about what RS have found thus far. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:15, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Partisan sources, whether from Fox News, Jacobin, American Conservative, MSNBC, or anywhere else are fine, @Objective3000:. As long as we're citing sources. The gist of the matter is that eyewitnesses have given dramatically different accounts and it's all hearsay for the time being. And I agree with you that it's likely that he was just looking for a famous suicide. But this is once again speculation. As for waiting? Yes, we can't override the RFC on that.

But most of the article should be rightfully empty for the time being. KlayCax (talk) 12:09, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Haha. I watched that video too. It never explicitly said he was anything close to left of center. Personisinsterest (talk) 00:46, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're confusing your definition of left of center with what's actually in the sources themselves. You cannot say he is left of center because one classmate said he didn't like Trump and use that as evidence the reports are contradictory. This is a big problem and what got me so riled up. Don't impose things on sources to pretend he was alleged to have a bunch of different political ideologies. Personisinsterest (talk) 12:23, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm opposed to adding anything regarding his political views outside of his registration and donations into the article. When did I ever add anything into the article saying that he was center-left? I didn't. Fox News stated he was described as center-left by a classmate, that's where I'm getting it from, @Personisinsterest:. I'm definitely opposed to adding that statement into Crook's Wikipedia article. (To state again.) And it's not original research to state that classmates have described his political views in radically contradicting ways and we don't know his beliefs. It's directly stated here and multiple other sources. He certainly has been alleged to have a "bunch of different political ideologies". Once described him as a hardcore conservative, another a right-leaning centrist, and another a "center-leftist" according to Fox News. (Citing his concern over COVID-19, masking, and supporting Fauci's cautionary approach to the pandemic.)

I absolutely do not agree that any of this should be added into the article for now. KlayCax (talk) 12:35, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Guardian article didn't say they were contradictory. It said they varied. And they only cited people who said he was conservative or didn't talk to them about politics.

I said that you used the assumption he was center-left to help your argument.

Again, I listened to the entire video and read the Fox article and NOWHERE does it say center-left. I don't know where you got that from. Personisinsterest (talk) 13:29, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, conservative and right leaning, which are the two explicit descriptors without the things you said, are not contradictory. It is contradictory between whether or not he supports Trump. Even the source that said he didn't like Trump didn't say he wasn't conservative. Personisinsterest (talk) 13:32, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a report involving you at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement regarding a possible violation of an Arbitration Committee decision. The thread is KlayCax. Thank you. Prcc27 (talk) 00:04, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Prcc27 May I request the link to the decision? Buildershed (talk) 21:25, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can see the discussion here, @Buildershed:.

@XavierGreen: was also wondering where to find this. I can't comment on the matter per guidelines. Hope that answers your question. KlayCax (talk) 05:51, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following topic ban now applies to you:

topic-banned from post-1992 politics of the United States, broadly construed.

You have been sanctioned for the reasons provided in response to this arbitration enforcement request.

This topic ban is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2#Final decision and, if applicable, the contentious topics procedure. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions. Please read WP:TBAN to understand what a topic ban is. If you do not comply with the topic ban, you may be blocked for an extended period to enforce the ban.

If you wish to appeal the ban, please read the appeals process. You are free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. Vanamonde93 (talk) 15:41, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello KlayCax. I also wanted to add, that you have been warned about your editing on infoboxes as well. Prcc27 (talk) 17:58, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, KlayCax. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Gary Clayton Anderson, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 09:06, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, KlayCax. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Jeffrey Ostler, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 12:05, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]