Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 02:51, 22 January 2024

Click here to add a new enforcement request
For appeals: create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}
See also: Logged AE sanctions

Important information

Shortcuts

WP:AE
WP:ARE

Please use this page only to:

request administrative action against editors violating a remedy (not merely a principle) or an injunction in an Arbitration Committee decision, or a contentious topic restriction imposed by an administrator,
request contentious topic restrictions against previously alerted editors who engage in misconduct in a topic area designated as a contentious topic,
request page restrictions (e.g. revert restrictions) on pages that are being disrupted in topic areas designated as contentious topics, or
appeal arbitration enforcement actions (including contentious topic restrictions) to uninvolved administrators.

For all other problems, including content disagreements or the enforcement of community-imposed sanctions, please use the other fora described in the dispute resolution process. To appeal Arbitration Committee decisions, please use the clarification and amendment noticeboard.

Only autoconfirmed users may file enforcement requests here; requests filed by IPs or accounts less than four days old or with less than 10 edits will be removed. All users are welcome to comment on requests except where doing so would violate an active restriction (such as an extended-confirmed restriction). If you make an enforcement request or comment on a request, your own conduct may be examined as well, and you may be sanctioned for it. Enforcement requests and statements in response to them may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. (Word Count Tool) Statements must be made in separate sections. Non-compliant contributions may be removed or shortened by administrators. Disruptive contributions such as personal attacks, or groundless or vexatious complaints, may result in blocks or other sanctions.

To make an enforcement request, click on the link above this box and supply all required information. Incomplete requests may be ignored. Requests reporting diffs older than one week may be declined as stale. To appeal a contentious topic restriction or other enforcement decision, please create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}.

Appeals and administrator modifications of contentious topics restrictions

The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications of contentious topic restrictions state the following:

All contentious topic restrictions (and logged warnings) may be appealed. Only the restricted editor may appeal an editor restriction. Any editor may appeal a page restriction.

The appeal process has three possible stages. An editor appealing a restriction may:

ask the administrator who first made the contentious topic restrictions (the "enforcing administrator") to reconsider their original decision;
request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN"); and
submit a request for amendment ("ARCA"). If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email.

Appeals submitted at AE or AN must be submitted using the applicable template.

A rough consensus of administrators at AE or editors at AN may specify a period of up to one year during which no appeals (other than an appeal to ARCA) may be submitted.

Changing or revoking a contentious topic restriction

An administrator may only modify or revoke a contentious topic restriction if a formal appeal is successful or if one of the following exceptions applies:

The administrator who originally imposed the contentious topic restriction (the "enforcing administrator") affirmatively consents to the change,^[a] or is no longer an administrator;^[b] or
The contentious topic restriction was imposed (or last renewed) more than a year ago and:
- the restriction was imposed by a single administrator, or
- the restriction was an indefinite block.

A formal appeal is successful only if one of the following agrees with revoking or changing the contentious topic restriction:

a clear consensus of uninvolved administrators at AE,
a clear consensus of uninvolved editors at AN,
a majority of the Arbitration Committee, acting through a motion at ARCA.

Any administrator who revokes or changes a contentious topic restriction out of process (i.e. without the above conditions being met) may, at the discretion of the Arbitration Committee, be desysopped.

Standard of review
On community review

Uninvolved administrators at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") and uninvolved editors at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN") should revoke or modify a contentious topic restriction on appeal if:

the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process),
the action was not reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption when first imposed, or
the action is no longer reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption.

On Arbitration Committee review

Arbitrators hearing an appeal at a request for amendment ("ARCA") will generally overturn a contentious topic restriction only if:

the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process),
the action represents an unreasonable exercise of administrative enforcement discretion, or
compelling circumstances warrant the full Committee's action.

^ The administrator may indicate consent at any time before, during, or after imposition of the restriction.
^ This criterion does not apply if the original action was imposed as a result of rough consensus at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, as there would be no single enforcing administrator.

Appeals and administrator modifications of non-contentious topics sanctions

The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications and appeals state:

Appeals by sanctioned editors

Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction and only for a currently active sanction. Requests for modification of page restrictions may be made by any editor. The process has three possible stages (see "Important notes" below). The editor may:

ask the enforcing administrator to reconsider their original decision;
request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators’ noticeboard ("AN"); and
submit a request for amendment at the amendment requests page ("ARCA"). If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email through Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee (or, if email access is revoked, to arbcom-enwikimedia.org).

Modifications by administrators

No administrator may modify or remove a sanction placed by another administrator without:

the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or
prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" below).

Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped.

Nothing in this section prevents an administrator from replacing an existing sanction issued by another administrator with a new sanction if fresh misconduct has taken place after the existing sanction was applied.

Administrators are free to modify sanctions placed by former administrators – that is, editors who do not have the administrator permission enabled (due to a temporary or permanent relinquishment or desysop) – without regard to the requirements of this section. If an administrator modifies a sanction placed by a former administrator, the administrator who made the modification becomes the "enforcing administrator". If a former administrator regains the tools, the provisions of this section again apply to their unmodified enforcement actions.

Important notes:

For a request to succeed, either

(i) the clear and substantial consensus of (a) uninvolved administrators at AE or (b) uninvolved editors at AN or

(ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA

is required. If consensus at AE or AN is unclear, the status quo prevails.

While asking the enforcing administrator and seeking reviews at AN or AE are not mandatory prior to seeking a decision from the committee, once the committee has reviewed a request, further substantive review at any forum is barred. The sole exception is editors under an active sanction who may still request an easing or removal of the sanction on the grounds that said sanction is no longer needed, but such requests may only be made once every six months, or whatever longer period the committee may specify.
These provisions apply only to contentious topic restrictions placed by administrators and to blocks placed by administrators to enforce arbitration case decisions. They do not apply to sanctions directly authorized by the committee, and enacted either by arbitrators or by arbitration clerks, or to special functionary blocks of whatever nature.
All actions designated as arbitration enforcement actions, including those alleged to be out of process or against existing policy, must first be appealed following arbitration enforcement procedures to establish if such enforcement is inappropriate before the action may be reversed or formally discussed at another venue.

Information for administrators processing requests

Thank you for participating in this area. AE works best if there are a variety of admins bringing their expertise to each case. There is no expectation to comment on every case, and the Arbitration Committee (ArbCom) thanks all admins for whatever time they can give.

A couple of reminders:

Before commenting, please familiarise yourself with the referenced ArbCom case. Please also read all the evidence (including diffs) presented in the AE request.
When a request widens to include editors beyond the initial request, these editors must be notified and the notifications recorded in the same way as for the initial editor against whom sanctions were requested. Where some part of the outcome is clear, a partial close may be implemented and noted as "Result concerning X".
Enforcement measures in arbitration cases should be construed liberally to protect Wikipedia and keep it running efficiently. Some of the behaviour described in an enforcement request might not be restricted by ArbCom. However, it may violate other Wikipedia policies and guidelines; you may use administrative discretion to resolve it.
More than one side in a dispute may have ArbCom conduct rulings applicable to them. Please ensure these are investigated.

Closing a thread:

Once an issue is resolved, enclose it between {{hat}} and {{hab}} tags. A bot should archive it in 7 days.
Please consider referring the case to ARCA if the outcome is a recommendation to do so or the issue regards administrator conduct.
You can use the templates {{uw-aeblock}} (for blocks) or {{AE sanction}} (for other contentious topic restrictions) to give notice of sanctions on user talk pages.
Please log sanctions in the Arbitration enforcement log.

Thanks again for helping. If you have any questions, please post on the talk page.

Arbitration enforcement archives

1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18	19	20
21	22	23	24	25	26	27	28	29	30	31	32	33	34	35	36	37	38	39	40
41	42	43	44	45	46	47	48	49	50	51	52	53	54	55	56	57	58	59	60
61	62	63	64	65	66	67	68	69	70	71	72	73	74	75	76	77	78	79	80
81	82	83	84	85	86	87	88	89	90	91	92	93	94	95	96	97	98	99	100
101	102	103	104	105	106	107	108	109	110	111	112	113	114	115	116	117	118	119	120
121	122	123	124	125	126	127	128	129	130	131	132	133	134	135	136	137	138	139	140
141	142	143	144	145	146	147	148	149	150	151	152	153	154	155	156	157	158	159	160
161	162	163	164	165	166	167	168	169	170	171	172	173	174	175	176	177	178	179	180
181	182	183	184	185	186	187	188	189	190	191	192	193	194	195	196	197	198	199	200
201	202	203	204	205	206	207	208	209	210	211	212	213	214	215	216	217	218	219	220
221	222	223	224	225	226	227	228	229	230	231	232	233	234	235	236	237	238	239	240
241	242	243	244	245	246	247	248	249	250	251	252	253	254	255	256	257	258	259	260
261	262	263	264	265	266	267	268	269	270	271	272	273	274	275	276	277	278	279	280
281	282	283	284	285	286	287	288	289	290	291	292	293	294	295	296	297	298	299	300
301	302	303	304	305	306	307	308	309	310	311	312	313	314	315	316	317	318	319	320
321	322	323	324	325	326	327	328	329	330	331	332

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

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.
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.
9 January 2024 Reinsertion of above information.
9 January 2024 To their credit they did open a talk page discussion about this.
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

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)

8 January 2023 Informed of BLP discretionary sanctions.
18 December 2023 Informed of A-I contentious topic.
9 January 2024 Warned about adding contentious information to BLP articles.

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

Owen Jones book has better coverage)
BLP: Michael Sandel change
Jacob_Bronowski alot of new content.

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 5 7 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 5 7 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]

CanterburyUK's response to the case, posted today, only makes me more convinced that an indef is the only solution here. Black Kite (talk) 18:21, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As issues have continued since your and my comments, I have indefinitely blocked under ARBBLP. After one year this will become a regular admin block. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|she) 04:02, 15 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]

Red-tailed hawk I would have taken that view myself had it not been for the edits on Owen Jones (and other articles relating to him). They had already been tbanned from one BLP, and they would need to have been banned from this one as well. When you've got two BLP blocks and a CTOP ban, given the utility of their editing in total an indef is warranted. Black Kite (talk) 21:51, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 00:37, 17 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

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.
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
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.
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
11 January 2024 Reinsertion of contested material after WP:BLP quoted in edit summary by me
11 January 2024 First reinsertion of contested material despite WP:BLPUNDEL being quoted in a previous edit summary
11 January 2024 Second reinsertion of contested material after WP:BLPUNDEL being cited in a previous edit summary
12 January 2024 Third reinsertion of contested material after WP:BLPUNDEL being cited in a previous edit summary
14 January 2024 Fourth reinsertion of contested material after WP:BLPUNDEL being cited in a previous edit summary
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. TarnishedPath^talk 14:35, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please note Special:Diff/1196612026 in which Mkstokes makes further personal attacks. TarnishedPath^talk 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]
- Absent any objections from admins here, I plan to close this by the end of today as a topic ban from Nick McKenzie and Peter Schiff for Mkstokes, alongside a warning for the filer. I think this reflects consensus here. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 05:44, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sounds good to me, thanks in advance for actioning. Daniel (talk) 06:26, 21 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 January 2024 The sentence "Azerbaijan regains control of all of Nagorno-Karabakh" added by a third-party user;
3 January 2024 KhndzorUtogh changes "regains" to "takes" and leaves a note on the talkpage;
5 January 2024 KhndzorUtogh's edit reverted, with a discussion ensuing on the talkpage;
18 January 2024 KhndzorUtogh reverts back while the discussion is in progress and nowhere near reaching consensus.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

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.
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]

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.

I'm looking at the talk page of 2023 Azerbaijani offensive in Nagorno-Karabakh as it was at the time that you made this edit. I'm plainly not seeing consensus in the relevant discussion (i.e. the NPOV issues section of the talk). The guidance given by Callanecc on your talk page, particularly An editor adds something to an article. You revert/change what they added. An editor reverts you. You can't revert their edit without a consensus, makes the restriction quite clear.
@KhndzorUtogh: In light of the above, would you be willing to explain why you made the edit to re-insert your preferred language of takes even though it had been reverted to regains by another editor prior to your doing so? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 05:57, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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
06:13, 18 January 2024 Restoration of previous 16 January edit.
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.

Indeffed for ECP violations, EC gaming, and battleground editing. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:19, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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. Zero^talk 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.

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/the ANI thread to explain the topic ban, but the ANI definitely provides enough examples of poor conduct to justify a TBAN (e.g. You are clearly anti-Israel). Galobtter (talk) 00:15, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[1] The administrator may indicate consent at any time before, during, or after imposition of the restriction.

[2] This criterion does not apply if the original action was imposed as a result of rough consensus at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, as there would be no single enforcing administrator.

[a]

[b]

@@ Line 156: / Line 156: @@
 ==Mkstokes==
+{{hat|{{no ping|Mkstokes}} is indefinitely [[WP:TBAN|topic banned]] from making edits related to [[Nick McKenzie]] or [[Peter Schiff]], [[WP:BROADLY|broadly construed]]. {{no ping|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]]. — [[User:Red-tailed hawk|<span style="color: #660000">Red-tailed&nbsp;hawk</span>]]&nbsp;<sub>[[User talk:Red-tailed hawk|<span style="color: #660000">(nest)</span>]]</sub> 02:51, 22 January 2024 (UTC) }}
 <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>
@@ Line 233: / Line 234: @@
 **Absent any objections from admins here, I plan to close this by the end of today as a topic ban from Nick McKenzie and Peter Schiff for Mkstokes, alongside a warning for the filer. I think this reflects consensus here. — [[User:Red-tailed hawk|<span style="color: #660000">Red-tailed&nbsp;hawk</span>]]&nbsp;<sub>[[User talk:Red-tailed hawk|<span style="color: #660000">(nest)</span>]]</sub> 05:44, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
 ***Sounds good to me, thanks in advance for actioning. [[User:Daniel|Daniel]] ([[User talk:Daniel|talk]]) 06:26, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
+{{hab}}
 ==KhndzorUtogh==

v t e Noticeboards
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles and content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Wikipedia noticeboards