To enforce an arbitration decision, and for edit warring, violating enforced BRD after multiple blocks for edit warring on the page Joe Biden, you have been blocked from editing Wikipedia for a period of 1 month. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block or other sanctions.

If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{ unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, I suggest you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me ( by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page. 

ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 17:22, 15 December 2023 (UTC) reply

---

Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."

1 month is a bit harsh for this issue don't you think? I think 1 week might have been appropriate. Iljhgtn ( talk) 15:57, 22 December 2023 (UTC) reply

I recently reported KlayCax for canvassing, and I guess the report went unnoticed by admins? KC has a history of disruptive behavior, including edit warring (which they have been blocked for before). If anything, I do not think 1 month is long enough. Prcc27 ( talk) 16:09, 22 December 2023 (UTC) reply

When I click on "User logs" and it shows me nothing for KlayCax. Why is that? I select "User logs" on the hyperlink in the column to the right of this textbox, but when I select "block log" it does not show me any history of blocks for KlayCax. Supposedly they are blocked now even, but I do not see it, or i do not know how to properly check someone's block history. What am I doing incorrectly? Iljhgtn ( talk) 03:54, 25 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Iljhgtn, the way you're doing it will show you what block actions KlayCax has performed, which is none, since they are not an admin. You would want to clear the Performer field and put "User:KlayCax" in the Target field. Getting to someone's block log is more easily done via the link at the top of their contributions page. Navigation pop-ups also make it easy. If you have follow-up questions, you're welcome at my user talk. This is getting a bit off-topic for KC's. Firefangledfeathers ( talk / contribs) 04:11, 25 December 2023 (UTC) reply

As you are currently under block, I wanted to raise something directly with you before I brought it to a forum that would be prohibitive to you responding. I've noticed a lot of overlap in interest between you and ShirtNShoesPls, with this very new editor spending roughly 40% of their editing on articles and talk pages that you also have frequented. These include three separate contentious topics: current American politics, genitalia/circumcision, and Pope Francis's policy towards LGBT issues. An overlap log is visible here. Additionally, editing hours appear very similar ( you, SNSP). At least one other editor has noticed behavioral similarities. If you have any relationship to this other account, I'd encourage you to declare it. I apologize if there is no relationship–you have frequently edited in a good-faith manner and have been civil towards me. I don't want you facing accusations without sufficient notice. I will be beginning an SPI in the coming days and will be sure to notify you when it happens. Courtesy ping to ScottishFinnishRadish as the blocking editor. ~ Pbritti ( talk) 20:47, 21 December 2023 (UTC) reply

I have opened the SPI. ~ Pbritti ( talk) 22:30, 21 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Upon completion of a CU and review of additional evidence both within the investigation and on my own, I believe that I recognized a sock but mistakenly attributed you as the sockmaster. I apologize in full for this error and wish to extend my most sincere hope that, following the end of this block, you are welcomed back by the editing community and are able to continue making positive contributions to the project. Please have a happy new year and, again, I apologize. ~ Pbritti ( talk) 01:48, 24 December 2023 (UTC) reply

@ ShirtNShoesPls: isn't me. Apologies for the late response, @ Pbritti:. I've been busy with residency and have been pretty burnt out with editing. Thank you. :)

I predominantly don't have time to contribute anymore. I'll still be active, but less so for the foreseeable future, if indefinitely. KlayCax ( talk) 18:07, 5 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Hello. I have reverted your changes to the lead of the John Adams article. Please see my edit summary for why. Thank you. Display name 99 ( talk) 04:00, 17 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Thank you, I'm checking out your response now. Apologies with the late response but I've been extensively busy with residency. KlayCax ( talk) 18:07, 5 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Your slow edit warring on this is disruptive. I suggest you self revert. Selfstudier ( talk) 19:34, 9 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Hi! I responded on the Israeli-Gaza War talk page. @ Drsruli:, @ PrimaPrime:, @ BilledMammal:, @ Borgenland:, and others, including me, have also objected to the wording. (CNN also says it's geographical: Some of this explains the continued strong Western support for Israel – which has now largely become reflexive) Multiple sources dispute the claim that Israel is militarily isolated. How could they be if multiple great powers are sending them weapons? (Germany, UK, and the US, amid other countries.)

Want to find consensus on this with the above, you, and @ Makeandtoss:. Thanks! Let's discuss on there. Worst case comes to past, we can start a RFC over it, although I can revert (if needed) for the time being. KlayCax ( talk) 19:51, 9 February 2024 (UTC) reply

No problem.. and quit the canvassing. Selfstudier ( talk) 19:53, 9 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Responded on other page. And thanks. KlayCax ( talk) 20:00, 9 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Now this diff is straight up edit warring to disruptively impose your personal POV. Kindly self revert, thank you. Selfstudier ( talk) 09:36, 12 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Just so we are quite clear when this started, 5 February was your removal of

"Israel and the United States were internationally isolated amid global calls for a ceasefire,[124][125][126] with the latter vetoing multiple proposals for one at the UN Security Council,[127][128][129]" (material + 6 sources) with the following edit summary:

"Per concerns on talk. The "increasing isolation" seems to be referring to resolutions at the United Nations Security Council regarding a ceasefire - which is already stated in the article - rather than geopolitical isolation. (Which is obviously ridiculous in terms of the U.S.) Sharply declining international approval for Israel is notable. Mentioning the U.K., Germany, or U.S. seems pretty debatable. Writing more on the talk page."

The first three removed sources all stated, with a quote given, "internationally isolated" as regards the US. Selfstudier ( talk) 10:41, 12 February 2024 (UTC) reply

I notice that you added to your user page that you were "an urologist in residency", which surprised me because I thought urologists agreed that the first sound in urology was /j/? -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 23:16, 10 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Hi. This addition seems contradicted by the Pentagon according to the same source: The Pentagon quickly issued a clarification that Austin was “citing an estimate from the Hamas-controlled health ministry that more than 25,000 total Palestinians have been killed in Gaza.” It looks like he said over 25,000 Palestinians in total were killed, not women and children. We could add this clarification as well, but is Austin's supposed declaration appropriate for lede in the first place? Thanks Vugarmamadov ( talk) 23:00, 29 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Did you mean to post this on the article's talk page? I'm just an editor who contributed on it. Thanks. KlayCax ( talk) 12:02, 1 March 2024 (UTC) reply

This is just horrible beyond words, not even English: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/?title=Israel&diff=prev&oldid=1213871590&title=Israel&diffonly=1

This is extremely redundant and silly: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/?title=Israel&diff=prev&oldid=1213892014&title=Israel&diffonly=1

Sometimes I think they do it on purpose. You are always the voice of sanity. Sorry for bothering you. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.9.122.76 ( talk) 19:44, 15 March 2024 (UTC) reply

You've said on multiple state pages that there is "clear consensus on 2024 United States election talk page to include Kennedy in states that he has write-in or direct ballot access on."

Is that true though? I'm looking at Talk:2024 United States elections and not seeing anything of the sort. Not being snarky, just curious where that consensus is. Woko Sapien ( talk) 17:50, 28 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Hey, @ Woko Sapien:.

That was a typo. :) The link is here. There's a general agreement that candidates (including RFK) should be added in places if they: 1.) Poll over 5% 2.) Have ballot access. KlayCax ( talk) 17:16, 29 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Ah, understood! I was terribly confused there for a while. Woko Sapien ( talk) 18:08, 29 March 2024 (UTC) reply

No, you're good! Don't worry. It's my fault for not being specific, @ Woko Sapien: and not explaining in greater detail. KlayCax ( talk) 18:12, 29 March 2024 (UTC) reply

As you might be aware, your attempt to close Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Where is Kate? (3rd nomination) was reverted by Silver seren with the edit summary this is not an AfD where non-admin closure is appropriate.

Seconding that sentiment, I wanted to draw your attention to WP:BADNAC, which states:

A non-admin closure is not appropriate in any of the following situations: ...

2. The outcome is a close call (especially where there are several valid outcomes) or likely to be controversial.
3. The non-admin has little or no experience editing Wikipedia generally or has little or no previous participation in discussions.

I notice you have fairly limited experience at AfD, so while the enthusiasm to help AfDs is very welcome, it might be worth sticking around to gain some experience by participating in AfD discussions before attempting to closure future AfDs.

Finally, per WP:EARLY, note that deletion discussions usually close after seven days. Your attempted close was after six days, and none of the conditions for an early close applied. Thanks, and happy editing! IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 21:42, 6 April 2024 (UTC) reply

A tag has been placed on Persecution of First Nations requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person, a group of people, an individual animal, an organization (band, club, company, etc.), web content, or an organized event that does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. microbiologyMarcus ^{petri dish· growths} 04:19, 21 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Thanks for your contributions to Ethnic Cleansing and the Indian. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it needs more sources to establish notability. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. Jeraxmoira🐉 ( talk) 08:08, 21 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Hi KlayCax, I have moved this article to Draft:Gary Clayton Anderson to allow you to add secondary sources such as media coverage demonstrating that the subject meets notability requirements for biographies. Thanks. AusLondonder ( talk) 08:52, 21 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Thanks for your contributions to Jeffrey Ostler. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it needs more sources to establish notability and there's no indication that this person passes WP:NPROF – h-index is 6 according to Scopus. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. Justlettersandnumbers ( talk) 11:59, 21 April 2024 (UTC) reply

It has been drawn to my attention that you have a strong tendency to create RfCs when your bold actions are rejected. You have done this recently on Native American genocide in the United States. Seven people out of the seven who have responded have opposed your proposal. Would you consider closing your own request, per WP:SNOW? Thank you for your consideration for others' time. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 12:13, 22 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Thank you. While I believe normally the language is something like "withdrawn by proposer" rather than "self-close", this is appreciated. KC vs. 8 people is indeed WP:1AM. Maybe you could go for a walk for a while or focus on one of the pages you think should be more strongly worded ? -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 00:33, 23 April 2024 (UTC) reply

I removed it per WP: SNOW.

However, wanted to note that editors such as @ ARoseWolf: were open to alternative names. So something like Settler colonialism in the United States would work. Also reached out to @ Hydrangeans: for cooperation on Discord. Do you personally think there's a trend of whitewashing Australia, Canada, and New Zealand, and the opposite for the United States, even if we disagree on what the article should be titled? It's been a repeated theme I've noticed on articles (compare Australian history wars to it; or, Indigenous peoples in Canada v. Native Americans in the United States) and seems obvious. Even if we disagree with what should be done: there's an apparent majority that the status quo is untenable. KlayCax ( talk) 02:10, 23 April 2024 (UTC) reply