This user is aware of the designation of the following topics as contentious topics:
post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people
gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them
governmental regulation of firearm ownership; the social, historical and political context of such regulation; and the people and organizations associated with these issues
articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles
WP:AAGF; if you think my revert was disruptive, feel free to take it to a noticeboard. Otherwise, if you have something to discuss on the talk page of which the revert occurred, feel free to post something of substance regarding the content vs opening a section, completely out of the blue, that appears to have had no practical purpose other than to make commentary regarding a policy on reliable sources. Kcmastrpc (talk) 22:38, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not helpful
This - while I am always grateful for other users' moderation, as I said, actual discussion is not bludgeoning. And there's no good reason to effectively support the side of one guy and either his sock or mate who have provoked half my response volume by having a go at me out of the blue. Endorsing the idea that harassing a user for wanting to discuss is okay, is not helpful. Kingsif (talk) 22:11, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Consider your warning understood, but again, look at the actual comments not just the number. Determine which users are contributing to discussion (that is being positively welcomed by the intended users, natch) and which users are not progressing discussion (while harassing and mischaracterising if not insulting). It doesn’t sit well with me that I am genuinely contributing - and, as said, the users I actually replied to have happily participated - but when some uninvolved user takes issue, I have to just let them attack, stalk and misrepresent me or get in trouble for telling them to piss off? Nobody wants to get involved in off-topic fights about who’s editing better, but it doesn’t sit well that defending oneself isn’t tolerated. Kingsif (talk) 14:30, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the level-headed response. One approach to consider might be to amend your response in a RFC by replying to yourself tagging specific users whose argument you're seeking to discuss. This is similar to how many editors will handle discussions at arbitration, as this has the benefit of keeping their responses within an arbitrary word limit, while also helping the OP gauge how much weight they're adding to a discussion.
It's easy to get carried away and in many cases, WP:BLUDGEON is a real phenomenon where the weight of your arguments are likely to be greatly diminished by the editor who closes the RFC. Kcmastrpc (talk) 14:41, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, you say that having asked users to stop harassing me doesn’t take away their right to participate in discussion. Of course it doesn’t, and you’ll see I haven’t took issue with their other contributions. But when they make comments that do not - and are clearly not intended to - contribute to discussion, but are just to continue harassing me, those comments surely cannot be considered reasonable. Remember I have the right to participate, and there are only off-topic comments because some guy I wasn’t even replying to, decided I shouldn’t. Maybe warn them about that. Kingsif (talk) 14:39, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Of course you have a right to participate, but keep in mind that if multiple editors are suggesting to WP:DROPTHESTICK it might be a wise course to step back, reevaluate, and involve a third-party via noticeboard if you feel that you're being harassed. Kcmastrpc (talk) 14:44, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(To both replies) Look, I feel I’ve been level-headed this whole time except for a reply, that I’ve already acknowledged as ill-judged, pointing out a sockpuppet investigation. In that RfC there are many times other users have spun out discussions from others’ comments, and I truly don’t think anyone would look on my replies even the least bit negatively if not for the fact one (maybe two) users have inexplicably taken issue with (only) me doing so right from the first time I did it (i.e. they couldn’t have pattern/STICK complaints at that point, but still insulted me).
And I really don’t even have a STICK to drop in terms of the actual RfC (separate issue with an uninvolved user painting me the villain before the people I respond to have even had a chance to reply) but it seems clear that any contributions will be met with some non-productive, rudely written, “you’ve replied again” comment. If it’s hostile for me to contribute, how am I supposed to. Kingsif (talk) 14:56, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have any advice to offer here other than I've learned that replying more than a few different editors in any given RFC has a high probability of drawing the ire of other editors, doubly so when it's a controversial subject. I took particular interest in this RfC because I'm generally opposed to stuffing lead sentences with highly controversial labels, per MOS:LABEL. Sock investigations aside, if a user has a pattern of disruptive behavior there are other remedies vs. clogging up the RFC discussion thread with behavioral arguments (not saying this happened here, because I'm mostly concerned with the volume of responses you've made vs. the content) and that's something I'd almost certainly take the time to more closely examine before deciding to take anyone to a noticeboard. Would it be OK if we close this discussion up? I have to get back to work. :) Kcmastrpc (talk) 15:07, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The repeated accusations of WP:OR, WP:NPOV, and WP:RS towards me
I don't know if this is a proper way to approach this, but multiple times on the Talk page for the Attempted assassination of Donald Trump article you have accused me of engaging in original research and acting in lieu of reliable sources in spite of me attempting to add information from reliable sources. I know as Wikipedians we are meant to put our personal feelings aside but this is really starting to bother me.
Template:Mass shootings in the United States in the 2020s: "I’ve removed the references as it’s not supported by RS and is blatant NPOV. Multiple editors have disagreed so I recommend finding WP:ONUS before reintroducing."
"These categories have been added again, despite this not being widely described as such by WP:RS, an actual comment in the article cat section, and there not being consensus for their inclusion. Could another editor please remove per WP:ONUS as I don't want to end up at ANI for edit warring."
Not a mass shooting: "Consider opening an RFC, multiple editors have disputed this, there are scant reliable sources on describing this event as such, and WP:ONUS is clear here."
"Because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and doesn’t conduct original research per WP:OR. This discussion is spread across multiple sections so please collapse and redirect to the RFC if you decide to open one."
Should Ronny Jackson's nephew be included in the injury count?: Do you have RS to support the updated injury counts? I don’t understand what’s so difficult with the policy concerning WP:OR. Wikipedia editors aren’t here to speculate or do our own WP:OR. If WP:RS are updating casualty / injury counts then we can update ours based on those reliable sources as well.
Let me address each accusation. In regards to the first two about the attack being categorized as a mass shooting, I was attempting to do this in accordance to our own article on mass shootings and as is mentioned on that article there are many definitions of a mass shooting, but two respectable sources such as Mass Shooting Tracker and Gun Violence Archive, which are also mentioned in the article have categorized it as such.[1][2] It feels to me as if you're ignoring that. Additionally, the purpose of a category, which is one of the things I was trying to add to the article, is to "group together pages on similar subjects". If two reliable sources that are included on the Wikipedia page about mass shootings and what classifies something as such, say it is a mass shooting, then why shouldn't the relevant mass shooting categories be added? And about the template, that is just to help with navigation and it along with the categories are very subtly located at the bottom of the page.
As for the last one, I was referencing something that has been included in the article for at least 24 hours now and has respectable sources such as Politico and the Texas Tribune.[3][4] Also, I mentioned the possibility of Jackson lying simply because public figures sometimes lie, but as far as I can tell there has been no dispute about Jackson's claim about his nephew being injured.
I apologize that my policy arguments were somewhat vague, however, please don't take my arguments about policy personally, they aren't an attack on you or your contributions to Wikipedia. I appreciate all the editors here and the time they volunteer to this effort. This includes you!
Allow me to address some of the points you've raised:
two respectable sources such as Mass Shooting Tracker and Gun Violence Archive, which are also mentioned in the article have categorized it as such. -- This is probably the strongest argument for inclusion; however, Wikipedia must also take into account the WP:WEIGHT of these sources against almost every WP:RS covering this topic not reporting this event as a mass shooting. Doing so could be considered WP:UNDUE. It also seems that several editors have also agreed with this rationale.
then why shouldn't the relevant mass shooting categories be added per WP:CATDEF, which states A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently refer to suggests we shouldn't use this, because reliable sources do not commonly and consistently refer to this event as a Mass shooting. Additionally, you'll see in the footnote for that particular policy: in declarative statements, rather than table or list form suggests the two sources you've mentioned above would further disqualify the inclusion as a category. I'd also refer to the editing guideline regarding categories which states, A category is probably inappropriate if the answer to the following questions is "no": If you go to the article from the category, will it be obvious why it's there? Is the category subject prominently discussed in the article?
no dispute about Jackson's claim about his nephew being injured I've explained on the article talk page why I believe Wikipedia shouldn't be WP:SYNTHing numbers based on all the various different reports of injuries and so on. I'm not going to comment on this further, because I honestly believe the points made above clearly lay out why we shouldn't be introducing Mass shooting as a category (or in the infobox).
I'll raise another point too, with regards to the article we have on Wikipedia for Mass shooting. Besides the issues I have personally with how ambiguous the definition of a Mass shooting has become, a reading of it suggests that violence perpetrated as a means to and end is often excluded, eg: ... while excluding violence committed as a means to an end, such as robbery or terrorism. The FBI now investigating this as an act of domestic terrorism (which is also mentioned in the lead of the DJT assassination article).[1]
I'll close this out with respectfully suggesting you consider WP:DROPTHESTICK with regards to the matter or, alternatively, just open an RFC; however, I believe the arguments above are very strong and as such any WP:RFC attempt would be unsuccessful. Kcmastrpc (talk) 11:32, 16 July 2024 (UTC) Kcmastrpc (talk) 11:32, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am going to drop the stick. I've never really engaged to a notable degree in an article that is remotely as "popular" as this one–this is insane to me–and its been too much for me. I felt like I was being driven crazy by a mix of editors with ill intention and normal editors such as yourself. Feel free to revert my edits in relation to casualties if you believe it would be appropriate, other than the mention of the officer who confronted Crooks after he pointed his rifle at him hurting his ankle in the body of the article since I strongly believe that should remain in that sense, though if you think it is inappropriate to include him in the total injury count in the infobox that is up to you. Raskuly (talk) 11:58, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have very strong feelings about the injury totals, even though I still believe editors attempting to WP:SYNTH such figures has issues because of the WP:BREAKING aspect of this event. My concerns were mostly based on using these totals to further an argument towards the categorization.
I applaud you for entering the fray, as doing so is the only way to gain experience at Wikipedia; and would encourage you to continue doing so. I also appreciate your patience with me and hearing out my arguments. Kcmastrpc (talk) 12:06, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The edit summary says that the edit was per the talk page, the category discussed on the talk page is a different one. The content appears to support the given category, if you disagree then google "JD Vance natalist" and add whatever sources you feel sufficient. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:10, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The same policy WP:BLPCAT applies the case for each content category must be made clear by the article text and its verifiable reliable sources, there is no prose or content in the BLP to support the cat. I recommend introducing content that is supported by reliable sources in his BLP to support introducing that category. Kcmastrpc (talk) 18:18, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The conclusion of the lead reads " Vance is an outspoken critic of childlessness, linking it to sociopathy and advocating that parents should have more voting power than non-parents" and is also in the body. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:20, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While sources have made that distinction, I'd still err on the side of inclusion of prose and sources that explore a direct link to his views and Natalism. Wikipedia shouldn't infer or WP:SYNTH; and I'm pretty sure such reliable source making this link do exist. Is it ok if this discussion continue in the talk section I linked above. The matter under discussion still applies. Kcmastrpc (talk) 18:33, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Interestingly enough, there are a lot more people linked to anti-natalism than natalism. Natalist politicians is also quite sparse. Kcmastrpc (talk) 18:34, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Vance is an outspoken critic of childlessness, linking it to sociopathy and advocating that parents should have more voting power than non-parents" is a direct link to his views and Natalism... A critic of childlessness is a natalist. These repeated misleading statements need to stop. How sparsly or well populated the category is doesn't matter, why do you keep bringing it up? Its misleading. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:02, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why would we take a discusion about user behavior to the talk page? We're talking about your repeated use of misleading edit summaries as well as misleading claims about articles like "there is no prose or content in the BLP to support the cat" Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:31, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're engaging me about the content of an article that has it's own talk page where I've already posted about this subject. Discuss this matter there and stop posting here. Let me be more clear, post on my page again and I'm going to ping an admin. WP:USERTALKSTOPKcmastrpc (talk) 21:29, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for pointing me to the archives. The amount for that particular article is mind boggling, but not surprising. I don't post much and am more unfamiliar with Wikipedia than I should be. I appreciate the pointer. Oghma6 (talk) 19:22, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Move discussion
Hello, Kcmastrpc,
I just wanted to respond to your comment in Talk:Arrest and indictment of Pavel Durov#Requested move 28 August 2024 which is now closed. While, technically, it is not against policy to move an article during an AFD discussion, it is highly discouraged because Moving the article while it is being discussed can produce confusion (both during the discussion and when closing using semi-automated closing scripts).
We encourage editors to move an article AFTER an AFD is closed because it complicates the AFD closure. We use an editing tool, XFDcloser, to close deletion discussions and while it is invaluable to closers, XFDcloser does not understand when an article is at a different page title than that cited on the AFD page. The software programming just can not handle it. So, we can not use XFDcloser to close the discussions, we have to do it manually which makes errors more likely and it's more time-consuming. Additionally, article page moves for controversial articles shouldn't be an individual's decision but be a result of a move discussion that will probably last at least as long as the AFD discussion. That's why we discourage moving an article especially because we are not saying that the article can never be moved but simply delay it a few days until the AFD closes. So, while moving an article isn't forbidden, it creates unnecessary complications that can easily be avoided by just waiting until the AFD closes. LizRead!Talk!00:24, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
TarnishedPath, your comment, to which KP was replying, about things ringing hollow also can be reasonably viewed as somewhat uncivil. Either way, you are correct, we all should be careful about how our comments might come across. Springee (talk) 15:22, 15 November 2024 (UTC) corrected spelling Springee (talk) 15:49, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I've been supportive of several ITNs from non-western countries. Most recently, this nomination, was supported by me. I could probably go find others, but I'd be more interested in what evidence you have of bias. Kcmastrpc (talk) 18:30, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am not willing to accuse or allege something on you, I just thought of sharing an observation I made in general on ITN. However I would not mind presenting some clues/ evidences to you for that, maybe now or later. ExclusiveEditorNotify Me!05:33, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to pretend that as a westerner I'm going to always put aside my biases (there is such thing as unconscious bias), however, I do try and weigh how prevalent each nomination is being covered by western news outlets. This is the english wikipedia, so any bias there is somewhat unavoidable. Nevertheless, if you feel like taking the time to enumerate your thoughts, I won't take your observations personally. Cheers. Kcmastrpc (talk) 13:18, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message
Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Administrators: This block may not be modified or lifted without the express prior written consent of the Arbitration Committee. Questions about this block should be directed to the Committee's mailing list.
Why was this user blocked? I had seen constructive edits from them in the past, but all it says is "ArbComBlock" with no public explanation from what I can see? Iljhgtn (talk) 22:38, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strange. I do not think I have ever seen an arbcom block before. Usually if you see a block it is for sockpuppetry or something. This seems especially ominous, but I had interacted with this editor before and wanted to know why they were blocked. You're saying that is not public information though? Iljhgtn (talk) 22:43, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
