Jump to content

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Undid revision 1197985870 by CollationoftheWilling (talk) rvt WP:ECR violation
Line 370: Line 370:
<!-- When closing this request (once there is a consensus) use {{hat|Result}} / {{hab}} if at AE, or an archive/discussion box template if on AN, inform the user on their talk page and note it in the contentious topics log below where their sanctions is logged. -->
<!-- When closing this request (once there is a consensus) use {{hat|Result}} / {{hab}} if at AE, or an archive/discussion box template if on AN, inform the user on their talk page and note it in the contentious topics log below where their sanctions is logged. -->
* Spending your appeal attacking other editors is not going to get you anywhere. I think it would have been helpful if ScottishFinnishRadish had linked to a few diffs/[[Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Constantly_deleted_content_without_discussion|the ANI thread]] to explain the topic ban, but the ANI definitely provides enough examples of poor conduct to justify a TBAN (e.g. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Greater_Palestine&diff=prev&oldid=1196779108 You are clearly anti-Israel]). [[User:Galobtter|Galobtter]] ([[User talk:Galobtter|talk]]) 00:15, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
* Spending your appeal attacking other editors is not going to get you anywhere. I think it would have been helpful if ScottishFinnishRadish had linked to a few diffs/[[Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Constantly_deleted_content_without_discussion|the ANI thread]] to explain the topic ban, but the ANI definitely provides enough examples of poor conduct to justify a TBAN (e.g. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Greater_Palestine&diff=prev&oldid=1196779108 You are clearly anti-Israel]). [[User:Galobtter|Galobtter]] ([[User talk:Galobtter|talk]]) 00:15, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

==ScottishFinnishRadish==
<small>''This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. <br />Requests may not exceed 500 [[Word count#Software|words]] and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.''</small>

===Request concerning ScottishFinnishRadish===
; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|CollationoftheWilling}} 17:41, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|ScottishFinnishRadish}}<p>{{ds/log|ScottishFinnishRadish}}</p>

<!--- Here and at the end, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. --->


;Sanction or remedy to be enforced: [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/CASENAME#SECTION]]
<!--- Link to the sanction or remedy that you ask to be enforced --->

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Contentious_topics/Arab%E2%80%93Israeli_conflict

; [[WP:DIFF|Diffs]] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation ''how'' these edits violate it :
<!-- Supply diffs as evidence here, and explain why they require arbitration enforcement. Any allegation not supported by a diff is usually disregarded. You may also link to an archived version of long discussions instead of supplying very many diffs. Enforcement requests and statements in response to them may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Non-compliant contributions may be removed or shortened by administrators. Disruptive contributions such as [[WP:NPA|personal attacks]], or groundless or [[vexatious]] complaints, may result in blocks or other sanctions.-->
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Red_Sea_crisis&diff=prev&oldid=1197983540 today] Removed large amount of text from the comments section through revert, then reverted back once by me, and then reverted a second time by him.

; Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any :
<!-- To the extent it may be relevant, link to previous sanctions such as blocks or topic bans.-->
#[http://Difflink1 Date] Explanation
#[http://Difflink2 Date] Explanation

;If [[Wikipedia:Contentious topics|contentious topics restrictions]] are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see [[WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics]]):
<!-- The following are examples. Write "Not applicable" or similar if this is not a discretionary sanctions enforcement request. Otherwise, fill out at least one line that applies and delete the rest. If you wish to request discretionary sanctions but none of these situations apply, issue an alert yourself instead of making this request, see the link above. -->
*Mentioned by name in the Arbitration Committee's Final Decision linked to above.
*Previously blocked as a discretionary sanction or contentious topic restriction for conduct in the area of conflict, see the block log linked to above.
*Previously given a discretionary sanction or contentious topic restriction or warned for conduct in the area of conflict on [http://Difflink1 Date] by {{admin|Username}}.
*Alerted about discretionary sanctions or contentious topics in the area of conflict, on [http://Difflink1 Date] (see the system log linked to above).
*Gave an alert about contentious topics in the area of conflict to another editor, on [http://Difflink1 Date]
*Participated in process about the area of conflict (such as a request or appeal at AE, AN or an Arbitration Committee process page), on [http://Difflink1 Date].
*Successfully appealed all their own sanctions relating to the area of conflict, on [http://Difflink1 Date].
*Placed a {{t|Contentious topics/aware}} template for the area of conflict on their own talk page.
*Otherwise made edits indicating an awareness of the contentious topic.

; Additional comments by editor filing complaint :
<!-- Add any further comment here -->
This person removed an edit request and numerous comments by me on a Talk Page by revert. I reverted it saying there was no reason or justification provided, and he reverted a second time. An intermediate editor did not care about my text on the TalkPage.

; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :
<!-- Please notify the user against whom you request enforcement of the request (you may use {{subst:AE-notice|thread name}}), and then replace this comment with a diff of the notification. The request will normally not be processed otherwise. -->

<!--- In the line below, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. --->
===Discussion concerning ScottishFinnishRadish===
<small>''Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 [[Word count#Software|words]] and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. <br />Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.''</small>
====Statement by ScottishFinnishRadish====

====Statement by (username)====
<!-- Copy and paste this empty section below the most recent statement and replace "(username)" with your username. -->

===Result concerning ScottishFinnishRadish===
:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.''
<!-- When closing this request use {{hat|Result}} / {{hab}}, inform the user on their talk page if they are being sanctioned (eg with {{AE sanction}} or {{uw-aeblock}} and note it in the discretionary sanctions log. -->
*

Revision as of 18:02, 22 January 2024

    Arbitration enforcement archives
    1234567891011121314151617181920
    2122232425262728293031323334353637383940
    4142434445464748495051525354555657585960
    6162636465666768697071727374757677787980
    81828384858687888990919293949596979899100
    101102103104105106107108109110111112113114115116117118119120
    121122123124125126127128129130131132133134135136137138139140
    141142143144145146147148149150151152153154155156157158159160
    161162163164165166167168169170171172173174175176177178179180
    181182183184185186187188189190191192193194195196197198199200
    201202203204205206207208209210211212213214215216217218219220
    221222223224225226227228229230231232233234235236237238239240
    241242243244245246247248249250251252253254255256257258259260
    261262263264265266267268269270271272273274275276277278279280
    281282283284285286287288289290291292293294295296297298299300
    301302303304305306307308309310311312313314315316317318319320
    321322323324325326327328329330331332333334335336337338339340
    341342343344345

    CanterburyUK

    CanterburyUK has been indefinitely blocked by Tamzin, so nothing really left to do here. If CanterburyUK wishes to appeal, they may do so via the normal process. Seraphimblade Talk to me 21:50, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    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.
    Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

    Request concerning CanterburyUK

    User who is submitting this request for enforcement
    Vladimir.copic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 00:28, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    User against whom enforcement is requested
    CanterburyUK (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

    Sanction or remedy to be enforced

    Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Palestine-Israel articles

    Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Editing of Biographies of Living Persons

    Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
    1. 18 December 2023 Inclusion of information regarding A-I conflict in a BLP article. Information was sourced to primary sources, WP:DAILYEXPRESS and opinion pieces and some direct quotations are not followed by citations. This seems to be pushing a certain POV regarding Jones. I reverted these edits.
    2. 8 January 2024 Inserting information on the same topic regarding A-I conflict in a BLP article. Again the information is primarily cited to opinion pieces as well as primary sources and Wikipedia. Quotations are lengthy and some are without citation. There is a section about the 7/10 Hamas attack which is cited to sources which do not mention Jones at all. I reverted this.
    3. 9 January 2024 Reinsertion of above information.
    4. 9 January 2024 To their credit they did open a talk page discussion about this.
    5. 9 January 2024 Added information about Owen Jones and the A-I conflict to a different BLP article. There does not seem to be a DUE case for this as it is cited to a primary source and an opinion piece by the subject of the article. I have now reverted this.
    Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
    1. 28 January 2023 Indefinitely blocked from Jordan Peterson and Talk:Jordan Peterson
    If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics)
    Additional comments by editor filing complaint

    This editor seems intent on adding information about a Youtube video concerning the current war in Gaza by journalist Owen Jones and the reaction to it in media. The information they are including is excessively long, poorly sourced, heavily reliant on opinion pieces and direct quotations (many of which are not cited). There is also the inclusion of information unrelated to the video which appears to try to push a certain POV. Given the editor is blocked from Jordan Peterson, they appear to have prior issues editing BLP issues. They were also recently warned by an editor about edit warring at Konstantin Kisin. The editor appears to struggle with placing and using citations and identifying appropriate sources for BLP articles. I'm not advocating for any specific remedy, but I do not want to catch a block for reverting or similar in the A-I conflict area so I would appreciate an admin's eyes on it.

    For full disclosure, I will note that this issue came to my attention through Owen Jones posting about this on his X account. Vladimir.copic (talk) 00:28, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    CanterburyUK is continuing to edit in a way that shows a lack of understanding of DUE and sourcing. See this edit introducing an entire paragraph (possibly with copyvio) about a NYT correction into the article of the recently deceased Palestinian writer Refaat Alareer and this edit which removes RS citations and replaces it with an ill-formatted citation to Wikipedia. Vladimir.copic (talk) 02:59, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

    [1]

    Discussion concerning CanterburyUK

    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 CanterburyUK

    Apologies that I am late commenting here.

    Taking item (5) first: the Brendan_O'Neill_(columnist) page

    User:Vladimir.copic reverted without using the Talk page - his revert comment was: "I do not see a DUE case for this". This was not helpful - because a superficial read of the paragraph directly above the one reverted: is equally open to that criticism; yet was left intact by them. I have today now asked on the Talk page, for explanation. In the 4 days since they reverted, I have not reverted back.

    (Off topic: I would prefer it if User:Vladimir.copic would use the page Talk when he reverts me in several pages. It encourages dialogue rather than what is currently feeling combative.)

    (B) Items 1-4: the Owen Jones page

    Off-Topic: Vladimir.copic' has not added any words to the page since at least 2018. Neither has Aquillion (unless my search was mistaken)

    In December in Talk I initiated a section about lack of new content. I notice on Jan 12th that another editor raised the same issue to my December one, they wrote: "the page lacks content. I notice when edits are made to add content they are reverted, the article has stagnated...Subjects he is active on.. added by various users, result in reverts here"

    I have replied there - at length and invite this Arbitration process to read that. Noteworthy is that 4 editors including me wanted to keep the Hamas section (they made small edits to it) versus only 2 against (Aquillion and @Vladimir.copic).

    I request the Arbitration process to notice that I have not pursued long edit wars: I have let those two users revert my content after an initial day or two push-and-shove.

    Re (1),2,3

    User:Vladimir.copic writes: > This editor seems intent on adding information about a Youtube video concerning the current war in Gaza by journalist Owen Jones and the reaction to it in media.

    Not just me - 3 other editors were happy for that content to be there - they all made small edits to that text.

    > .. many of which are not cited

    Not true - checking now, only 1 was not sourced. The Editor could have reverted just that one - instead of all.

    > There is also the inclusion of information unrelated to the video which appears to try to push a certain POV.

    I myself deleted that section within 24 hours of the editor flagging it up.

    Regards the WP:DAILYEXPRESS mention - the article I quoted was by a notable person Andrew Neill not an unknown or gossip or etc journalist. - so it seemed OK to over-ride the blanket ban on that newspaper.

    Re (4) This claim is misleading regards date - I posted on Talk BEFORE I posted any new content, back in December, not January: Has nothing of note happened to Jones the last few years?

    Yet User:Vladimir.copic did not enter the Talk page when he first reverted. It was me that took the initiative to encourage the dialogue.

    I ask the process to assume good faith. I leave pages better than they were before (eg


    Thanks.

    PS and off-topic:- 'Vladimir.copic' has said in this page 'For full disclosure, I will note that this issue came to my attention through Owen Jones posting about this on his X account.' Which was correct re Etiqutte (Recognize your own biases and keep them in check.) Given that they follow Jones, yet they have not found anything in recent years of following Jones that is worth adding to the wiki page -given how sparse it's content is? I don't follow Jones, and yet I have done more to add helpful content to the page.

    PPS: and off-topic: Wikipedia:Etiquette - Un-expert editors like myself would find it more welcoming here if the 2 editors above applied this: simple things like : in the case when reverting a block of 5 or 6 sources that clearly took the editor time to source - maybe (a) to revert with positive words first 'thanks for taking the effort to find these sources..' and (b) immediately start a section on Talk about the subject.

    Quoting from the guidance: "Give praise when it's due. Everybody likes to feel appreciated, especially in an environment that often requires compromise. Drop a friendly note on users' talk pages".

    I have not had friendly notes from them.

    And: "Avoid reverts whenever possible" Yet reverts seems to be the main activity of the editors on this page:

    PPPS - Off-topic: other posts by Vladimir.copic, may fail the UNDUE test he applies to the Jones page more strictly: he created a whole heading here for just one issue:

    Moved from above section

    What date was his Tweet? what did he say? CanterburyUK (talk) 13:17, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Statement by (username)

    Result concerning CanterburyUK

    This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
    • I'm very concerned with what I'm seeing with BLP editing, especially with the prior ban from Jordan Peterson. At this point, I think I would topic ban from both BLPs and the ARBPIA area, but when someone needs to be repeatedly restricted, that also leads to the question of whether they ought to continue editing at all, as often restrictions just result in moving the disruptive behavior around. CanterburyUK, if you have anything to say in regards to that, now would be the time. Seraphimblade Talk to me 22:45, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      As it doesn't seem CanterburyUK is going to have anything to say here, I think we need to figure out what to do given that. Seraphimblade Talk to me 11:23, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • (edit conflict) This certainly falls below the care I like to see when editing BLPs, especially at the intersection with another contentious topic. My concern is, based on their behavior at Jordan Peterson, they will be unwilling to take the advice of more knowledgeable editors, and create enormous time sinks over plainly unsuitable content. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:48, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Seraphimblade, how do you feel about a topic ban on any BLP edit also covered by another CTOP? Or just a BLP topic ban? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:50, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Given that CanterburyUK has been editing since 2008, the additions to the Owen Jones article are not only a red flag from a NPOV perspective, but also regarding editing competence. How can an editor of 15 years still not be aware of WP:UNDUE (this edit makes over 45% of the Jones article about his views on the 7 October attack), MOS:DATE and basic matters such as how to place inline citations? Number 57 23:07, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      15 years, but only 655 edits in that time. In terms of knowing the basics, someone who makes an edit per week for 15 years will often know less than someone who's been editing actively for 5 days. That's not to say that action isn't needed here; just that we shouldn't be surprised by things like issues with inline citations and date-formatting. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|she) 23:41, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Given CanterburyUK's response here is just this (plus a request elsewhere to Vladimir.copic to withdraw the AE request), then I think at the very least a CTOP/BLP topic ban is appropriate. Number 57 13:47, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes, at the very least. If they were merely trying to shoehorn material into Jones' article, we could even use partial blocks, but the fact that they're trying to insert UNDUE material about Jones into other BLPs (Brendan O'Neill) shows that they need to be kept away from those topic areas. To be honest, given their editing history and existing partial block, I don't think we'd be losing a huge amount with an indef either. Black Kite (talk) 14:24, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • My lesson learned from issuing two BLP TBANs is that if you think you need to ban someone from BLP, 95 times out of 100 what you really need is to indef them. WP:BLP represents our core content policies at their most strongly-enforced, so if someone is seriously failing to comply with it, then they are seriously failing to understand how Wikipedia works. And if someone cannot comply with the policy as written, it is unlikely that they will be able to comply with the broadest category of TBAN we have at our disposal. Reading this case and the Peterson case, I favor an indef. An unblock appeal should focus on the BLP policy and how it interacts with WP:NPOV, particularly the latter's section WP:DUE. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|she) 18:15, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note that CanterburyUK has replied to some of the comments here; please see their talk page. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:43, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not terribly concerned broadly as if there were a pattern of this user attempting to use Wikipedia primarily to harm reputations. The edits involving Peterson seem to be more unduly positive than anything else; it's a bit different than this complaint inasmuch as much as it was that the user was bludgeoning and adding overly positive material, rather than materially negative information.
      I'd point to some language in WP:BLPCOI that says More generally, editors who have a strongly negative or positive view of the subject of a biographical article should be especially careful to edit that article neutrally, if they choose to edit it at all. And it seems like the editor has strong opinions about Jordan Peterson, and also about the events of October 7, 2023. But if this is the root, then the solution is to restrict editing in those areas where the user's passions run wild; a more narrowly tailored approach involves a TBAN from Israel-Palestine—not a straight indef. I think the indef proffered here is plainly inappropriate for a user who had prior only received a single partial block. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 17:31, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm in about the same boat as Black Kite. Ordinarily I would agree, but we're looking here at a lot of problematic editing in sensitive areas, even during an open AE request, and the statement above gives no indication that CanterburyUK understands why it's a problem to begin with. So, I think we would have reached an indef one way or the other. Seraphimblade Talk to me 21:58, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Mkstokes

    Mkstokes is indefinitely topic banned from making edits related to Nick McKenzie or Peter Schiff, broadly construed. TarnishedPath is warned to remain civil and to refrain from future edit warring. Both the topic ban and the warning will be logged as Arbitration Enforcement sanctions under WP:NEWBLPBAN. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 02:51, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    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.
    Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

    Request concerning Mkstokes

    User who is submitting this request for enforcement
    TarnishedPath (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 14:20, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    User against whom enforcement is requested
    Mkstokes (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log


    Sanction or remedy to be enforced
    Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Editing of Biographies of Living Persons
    Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
    1. 10 January 2024 engaged in personal attacks at Talk:Nick McKenzie when they wrote that any article that didn't specify that McKenzie defamed Schiff was on my conscience.
    2. 11 January 2024 Engaged in incivility when they passively aggressively wrote "Thank you for the correction and tacit admission that you got it wrong. I know that couldn't have been easy and it is a positive first step in restoring your credibility." after I corrected a mistake in a tempate warning that I left on their user talk regarding their behaviour at Nick McKenzie
    3. 12 January 2024 Assumed bad faith and engaged in personal attacks at Talk:Nick McKenzie when they stated that "You are continually misreading Wikipedia policies to suit your own narrative" after I advised them that WP:BLPUNDEL applied to removed material and that the onus was on them to obtain consensus for restoriation.
    4. 13 January 2024 Inserted YouTube video into Peter Schiff against WP:RSPYT when I had earlier advised them that it was unreliable at Special:Diff/1194706454
    5. 11 January 2024 Reinsertion of contested material after WP:BLP quoted in edit summary by me
    6. 11 January 2024 First reinsertion of contested material despite WP:BLPUNDEL being quoted in a previous edit summary
    7. 11 January 2024 Second reinsertion of contested material after WP:BLPUNDEL being cited in a previous edit summary
    8. 12 January 2024 Third reinsertion of contested material after WP:BLPUNDEL being cited in a previous edit summary
    9. 14 January 2024 Fourth reinsertion of contested material after WP:BLPUNDEL being cited in a previous edit summary
    10. 15 January 2024 Fifth reinsertion of contested material after WP:BLPUNDEL being cited in a previous edit summary
    If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics)
    • Alerted about discretionary sanctions or contentious topics in the area of conflict, on 4 January 2024 (see the system log linked to above).
    • Participated in process about the area of conflict (such as a request or appeal at AE, AN or an Arbitration Committee process page), on 16 January 2024.
    • Otherwise made edits indicating an awareness of the contentious topic 12 January 2024.
    Additional comments by editor filing complaint

    Firstly, I need to apologise. I could have saved much disruption if I had warned this editor of CTOP earlier and also if I had brought their disruption here earlier when it became apparent that they had no intention of listening to any guidance when informed about WP:BLP/WP:BLPUNDEL. By not taking the correct action fast enough I have been part of the problem.

    A review of Mkstokes contribution history indicates that between 28 Dec 2006 and 27 Sep 2014 they only edited on 13 occasions. The overwhelming majority of their edits since 21 December 2023 (after a long break in editing) have involved either Nick McKenzie or Peter Schiff and have been aimed at inserting Nick McKenzie's part into a lawsuit that Schiff ultimately won regardless of whether secondary sources mention McKenzie at all or just in passing. They have alternatively argued between attempting to use court transcripts and unreliable sources regardless of WP:BLP, WP:BLPSOURCES, WP:BLPPRIMARY and WP:RSP and using reliable secondary sources which only mention McKenzie in passing, and do not mention that he defamed Schiff regardless of WP:OR. When I've removed material per WP:BLP/WP:BLPUNDEL and advised Mkstokes of this they have sought to sidestep the onus on them to obtain consensus prior to re-inserting the material by assuming bad faith at my end. Mkstokes is clearly a WP:SPA, their behaviour highlights WP:TENDENTIOUS at best and a desire to WP:RGW. TarnishedPathtalk 14:35, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Please note Special:Diff/1196612026 in which Mkstokes makes further personal attacks. TarnishedPathtalk 02:33, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

    Special:Diff/1196136230

    Discussion concerning Mkstokes

    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 Mkstokes

    A review of my contribution history is not dispositive and can easily be explained by the fact that not a single one of my previous edits was disputed. Thus this is my first experience in dealing with contentious topics. So I'm not even sure why this needs to be a case.

    As to my aim to insert data related to Nick McKenzie, deciding that a news source mentions the subject's name "in passing" is an editorial opinion, not a fact. The fact is that I've noted at least 2 secondary sources that mention his name while not determining whether if it's in passing or not because it is not my place to make that determination. One source says "...compiled by journalists Nick McKenzie, Charlotte Grieve and Joel Tozer..." and the other source says "Schiff's lawsuit, which was filed against Nine, The Age Company and McKenzie and other reporters including Charlotte Grieve, claimed the October 2020 broadcast, titled 'Operation Atlantis’ defamed him by implying that he "facilitated the theft of millions of dollars from the Australian people” by assisting customers to commit offshore tax fraud."

    The RfC associated with the Nick McKenzie article poses the following question: "Should this material be removed such that the established consensus becomes that this subject matter is not covered in any way in this article moving forward until such time that alternative consensus is established?" Then, without obtaining consensus for this question, the person creating the RfC removed or updated the article. I've only just learned now that the user shouldn't have asked to obtain consensus for removal, but given the context of the RfC it is clear that I was trying to stop an editor from going forward with unsupported edit.

    The other editor has seemingly created their own restrictions on reliable secondary sources. These are as follows:

    • Any secondary source must say that McKenzie defamed Schiff. If it does not, then the source can't be used. This is strange because the section is "Court cases and shield laws" and this is unquestionably a court case that involves McKenzie.
    • Despite a reliable source saying "...the episode and its accompanying news articles, compiled by journalists Nick McKenzie..." he says the only controlling text is"...its accompanying news articles, compiled by journalists Nick McKenzie..." This is strange because I keep providing him the full quote and he keeps misquoting it.

    I was not notified that the video source was unreliable. Rather, the other editor said YouTube videos MUST come from "a verified account of an official news organization." The WP:RSPYT policy actually says "Content uploaded from a verified official account, such as that of a news organization..." Such as means "for example," not what the other editor suggests.

    UPDATE: I will accept any ban that you decide to place upon my account. I honestly don't care anymore. Do as you wish. Mkstokes (talk) 18:51, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Statement by (username)

    Result concerning Mkstokes

    This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
    • I noted yesterday when this same incident was filed as a case request (it's since been removed) that I full-protected Nick McKenzie as in my view both editors were perpetuating a revert war which started on 10 January, and have also been edit-warring at Peter Schiff over the same issue and stretching back about two weeks earlier. It did not seem to me that the content rose to the level of WP:3RRNO exemption, though I did not review in great detail, but I removed the content anyway in the conservative spirit of WP:BLP, pending resolution of a talk page discussion which was already open. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:10, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Based on a review of Mkstokes's contribution history that I conducted yesterday when I saw the RfAR case request filed, I support an indefinite ban under CT provisions from Nick McKenzie and Peter Schiff for frequent and egregious violations of the biographies of living persons policy, as well as battleground behaviour. I agree with TarnishedPath that their behaviour and contribution history is disruptive and also reflects that of a single-purpose account. Daniel (talk) 21:15, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I do agree that we've got edit warring going on here. I don't think a TBAN from the topics broadly is necessitated by the edit warring (a P-block from the articles could do that), but I do have some concern about bludgeoning from the respondent that can't be resolved by a mainspace PBLOCK. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 03:28, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I will note this diff by the filer, which Ivanvector has correctly noted come fairly close to gravedancing (or at least the spirit thereof). — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 02:23, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not impressed by either party's behavior here. I'd probably be inclined to give both of them some time away from that article. Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:51, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • For me, while TarnishedPath definitely hasn't been perfect in this whole situation, I feel like they haven't been anywhere near as disruptive as Mkstokes. When you then factor in that Mkstokes is, in my opinion, a single-purpose account (167 edits total) pushing a pretty clear point of view and without the high level of sourcing required for negative BLP content, I don't think an equitable sanction is appropriate here. I'd encourage a bespoke but firm warning to TarnishedPath and, as per my view above, an indefinite ban from Nick McKenzie & Peter Schiff for Mkstokes. Daniel (talk) 23:32, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I could live with that. Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:51, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I could also live with that, provided that the bespoke but firm warning is a logged warning. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 05:00, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    KhndzorUtogh

    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 KhndzorUtogh

    User who is submitting this request for enforcement
    Parishan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 19:46, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    User against whom enforcement is requested
    KhndzorUtogh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log


    Sanction or remedy to be enforced
    Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Armenia-Azerbaijan 3
    Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
    1. 1 January 2024 The sentence "Azerbaijan regains control of all of Nagorno-Karabakh" added by a third-party user;
    2. 3 January 2024 KhndzorUtogh changes "regains" to "takes" and leaves a note on the talkpage;
    3. 5 January 2024 KhndzorUtogh's edit reverted, with a discussion ensuing on the talkpage;
    4. 18 January 2024 KhndzorUtogh reverts back while the discussion is in progress and nowhere near reaching consensus.
    Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
    1. 28 December 2023 KhndzorUtogh is currently subject to an indefinite arbitration enforcement sanction requiring them to obtain consensus before readding any reverted content in AA3 articles. They have also been warned not to engage in battleground editing.
    2. 9 January 2024 The sanction conditions were clarified to them (on their own request) just a few days ago.
    Additional comments by editor filing complaint

    KhndzorUtogh narrowly escaped an indefinite topic ban following the most recent AE request addressing their battleground behaviour, but unfortunately continues to display the same editing pattern that earned them the one-revert sanction they have just violated.

    Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
    [2]

    Discussion concerning KhndzorUtogh

    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 KhndzorUtogh

    3 January 2024 is not a revert, it is a general copyediting diff, all of the changes of which I explained on the talkpage for Ken Aeron, the user that edited 1 January 2024. Ken never replied, instead Parishan later did. The 5 January 2024 edit by Parishan (who is the un-named editor) was only a partial revert; I didn't receive a notification that I was reverted and hadn't realized that I had been. I also wasn't notified Parishan had replied to me four days later on 9 January because I didn't get an alert. By the time I noticed it on 18 January, I didn't remember a one-word change out of a much larger copyediting edit I made for a different user. Since I wasn't notified of Parishan's revert, it appeared that the word was never changed. The 18 January 2024 edit came after I posted several sources for it on the talk page, so it had seemed like a single bold edit I had made, in line with WP:BRD.

    And it seems like incredibly bad faith and WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality for Parishan to link a discussion I had with Callanec showing several examples of me being careful to adhere to the rules, and then somehow conclude "continues to display the same editing pattern". For example, I followed the advice given here to the letter on the Blockade of Nagorno-Karabakh article. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 23:15, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    @Red-tailed hawk: This article had a massive amount of activity within the first few days of January (42 revisions by 13 users). I was reviewing every change and copyediting where needed, and unfortunately amid all the other changes, I forgot that I had already changed this one word. The confusion also came from interacting with two different users. After I copy edited several changes made by Ken Aeron, that user never disputed anything in my edit, so I must've made a mental note this issue was resolved. Then Parishan made a manual change; not a revert, so I never got the "Your edit on X was reverted" notification. When I changed the word on 18 January, I thought I was changing it for the first time as WP:BRD allows. I wouldn't have changed the word otherwise, I'm being very careful not to get into an edit war. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 17:54, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Statement by (username)

    Result concerning KhndzorUtogh

    This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.

    Eastern but not so Middle

    Indefinitely blocked by ScottishFinnishRadish. Galobtter (talk) 01:53, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    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.
    Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

    Request concerning Eastern but not so Middle

    User who is submitting this request for enforcement
    Hemiauchenia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 23:04, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    User against whom enforcement is requested
    Eastern but not so Middle (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log


    Sanction or remedy to be enforced
    Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 4
    Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
    1. 18:08, 16 January 2024 Editing regarding Israel-Palestine despite having been previously warned about editing the topic area as a non ECP user 09:18, 29 December 2023
    2. 06:13, 18 January 2024 Restoration of previous 16 January edit.
    3. 22:32, 19 January 2024 Creation of an Israel-Palestine redirect despite having been previously warned about editing regarding topic area as a non ECP user and very explicitly warned that this applied to all Israel-Palestine related content anywhere 06:34, 18 January 2024
    If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics)

    Notified by me of the sanctions in this topic area on at 07:53, 29 December 2023

    Additional comments by editor filing complaint

    This user has been attempting to game ECP by making hundreds of dummy edits (see their userpage history [3], where they have made over 100 trivial edits) in an attempt to inflate their edit count. Their edits regarding the Israel-Palestine conflict have been combative e.g. [4] (made before contentious topics notification) [5] (made after being notified of the contentious topics). I really think that they lack a suitable temprament for this topic area, and I would rather this problem be nipped in the bud before they make enough dummy edits to pass the ECP barrier. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:04, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

    Discussion concerning Eastern but not so Middle

    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 Eastern but not so Middle

    Statement by (username)

    Result concerning Eastern but not so Middle

    This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.

    Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Sakiv

    Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found here. According to the procedures, a "clear and substantial consensus of uninvolved administrators" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action.

    To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED).

    Appealing user
    Sakiv (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)Sakiv (talk) 23:19, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sanction being appealed
    Sixth-month topic ban
    Administrator imposing the sanction
    ScottishFinnishRadish (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
    Notification of that administrator
    diff

    Statement by Sakiv

    There was a discussion about the Greater Palestine article that began on January 6, when I brought up the topic of moving the article that began in August. Onceinawhile promptly replied in a non-objective manner and began to personalize the discussion, always referring to me with the word “you.” The same editor had agreed to a rename to PLO and Jordan. Notice that in the history of the article, there is an IP address that suddenly entered the discussion and described me as not being there to build an encyclopedia unlike Onceinawhile. Days passed and the discussion died down for a week, specifically on January 12, when the aforementioned editor nominated the article for deletion. At the same time, as a right to save any article that one of the editors deems worthy of survival, I have attempted to develop it in good faith and constructively. After several hours, editor Zero000 comes and removes content that they find problematic without discussion. I admit that my role was not completely good, but what happened was an accumulation that the other party also contributed to. This reply was very unnecessary and is this a response that helps make the encyclopedia a place for cooperation?. On the Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, I acknowledge that I was supposed to notify the two editors involved, but there was a discussion that was ongoing and it was not clear what was the appropriate place - dispute resolution or a third opinion. My goal was an administrative measure not to delete texts from an article until the picture became clear. I didn't get any warnings about complaints due to my "battleground edditing". Most of my edits revolve around football and season statistics. My edits bear witness that I stay away from sharp and uncontrolled debate and adhere to neutrality.Sakiv (talk) 23:50, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I received one message on my discussion page and after that I did not say anything about the topic. I am committed to the decision and the topic revolves around that article alone. There are no complaints about my contributions to other articles. I acknowledge that what I did in the Administrators' noticeboard was not what was expected, but that was the basis for the emotions that followed the heated discussion of the article and the discussion of deletion. Sakiv (talk) 20:59, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Statement by ScottishFinnishRadish

    Statement by Zero0000

    I won't repeat everything I wrote at ANI, except to note that here again Sakiv demonstrates a serious OWN problem with that article (Greater Palestine, now merged). Every disagreement with his/her changes is taken personally no matter how much they are explained.

    Also, I have never deleted anything from that article without explanation so that charge is false. On the other hand, with only the pseudo-explanation "restore valuable information", this edit of Sakiv undid 10 months worth of edits. Zerotalk 03:04, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Statement by (involved editor 2)

    Statement by (involved editor Star Mississippi)

    • While I supported the topic ban in the referenced discussion, I also think their conduct post TB shows that Sakiv got off too lightly. Continuing to re-litigate the old fights is not conducive to collaborative editing and would support a broader block. Star Mississippi 20:50, 21 January 2024 (UTC) NB: not a frequent AE editor, please re-format me if needed. Star Mississippi 20:50, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Sakiv

    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 (uninvolved editor 1)

    Statement by (uninvolved editor 2)

    Result of the appeal by Sakiv

    This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.