User talk:Mkstokes: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 18:39, 15 March 2024

A belated welcome!

Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, Mkstokes! I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may still benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:

Need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Try the Task Center.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Again, welcome! Viriditas (talk) 22:38, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what to do in regards to edits for the Peter Schiff article. I'm trying to make honest edits that succinctly reflect both of the investigations as well as the defamation case. I'm tempted to create an entire new article just to cover the defamation case as that seems to be the point of contention. Please advise. Mkstokes (talk) 15:42, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CANVASSING and Personal Attacks

Please cease WP:CANVASSING like you did at Special:Diff/1194947781 and Special:Diff/1194948602. Additionally you need to cease any further personal attacks like you did at Special:Diff/1194975996. Further behaviour may result in reports to noticeboards. TarnishedPath^talk 23:07, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Case request declined

Regarding your case request.. In response to your request for arbitration, the Arbitration Committee has agreed that arbitration is not required at this stage. Arbitration on Wikipedia is a lengthy, complicated process that involves the unilateral adjudication of a dispute by an elected committee. Although the Committee's decisions can be useful to certain disputes, in many cases the actual process of arbitration is unenjoyable and time-consuming. Moreover, for most disputes the community maintains an effective set of mechanisms for reaching a compromise or resolving a grievance.

Disputes among editors regarding the content of an article should use structured discussion on the talk page between the disputing editors. However, requests for comment, third opinions and other venues are available if discussion alone does not yield a consensus. The dispute resolution noticeboard also exists as a method of resolving content disputes that aren't easily resolved with talk page discussion.

In all cases, you should review Wikipedia:Dispute resolution to learn more about resolving disputes on Wikipedia. The English Wikipedia community has many venues for resolving disputes and grievances, and it is important to explore them instead of requesting arbitration in the first instance. For more information on the process of arbitration, please see the Arbitration Policy and the Guide to Arbitration. I hope this advice is useful, and please do not hesitate to contact me or a member of the community if you have more questions. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 18:03, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this was helpful @MJL. Thank you! Mkstokes (talk) 18:55, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@MJL I do have a question regarding the usage of YouTube videos. I was looking at the WP:BLP for Katt Williams and there is an attached, viral, YouTube video of Katt Williams' interview with Shannon Sharpe. Shannon Sharpe is a verified user on YouTube. This is not a "news organization" as mentioned in WP:RSPYT. Rather it is a "...weekly podcast hosted by Shannon Sharpe." I've been told by @TarnishedPath that only videos "...uploaded by a verified account of an official news organisation" are allowed. Given that direction, should I insist that this reference be removed? Mkstokes (talk) 21:32, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mkstokes this is WP:POINTy. If you have specific questions about whether something is a WP:RS without trying to disruptively point score on it, take it to WP:RS/N TarnishedPath^talk 22:08, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken, @TarnishedPath. As per the WP:POINT examples, I have not nominated, created an article, deleted, summarily removed, created a hoax, added references, etc. These are definite actions to do something disruptive. I have merely asked a question and based on my reading, asking questions, especially when a user says I can ask a question isn't POINTy. However, after re-reading this guideline, I will ask my question in the appropriate forum as "...the policy's talk page is the proper place to raise [my] concerns" according to WP:POINT. Thank you for the advice. Mkstokes (talk) 22:48, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mkstokes asking the question in relation to something I've said in order to point score against me is WP:POINTy. I'd advise against such behaviour while you have WP:AE case open against you considering what administrators have written already. TarnishedPath^talk 23:06, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't care less what administrators have written already to be honest. If they want to ban me, fine. I just won't edit Wikipedia articles anymore. So, thanks for the warning, but my life does not revolve around Wikipedia and I'll be just fine. You're welcome to run off immediately and tell them that like some petulant child. It was enough for me to see you admit that this was "...a lawsuit that Schiff ultimately won...", confirming that you know both articles are inaccurate, but you want the information suppressed/whitewashed anyway. It was fun while it lasted. Thank you. Mkstokes (talk) 00:32, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ivanvector, @Daniel, @Red-tailed hawk the editor has a message that they'd like to share with you. TarnishedPath^talk 00:37, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@TarnishedPath: your comments here are coming across pretty close to WP:GRAVEDANCING. The reports have been made and uninvolved administrators are investigating; your continued badgering is not helping anyone. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 01:20, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do you people even read the policies that you reference? What a joke! The WP:GRAVEDANCING policy is, as it says:

This page in a nutshell:

The work of a blocked, banned or retired editor should be treated respectfully as it may still have some value.
Be civil to editors even after they are gone.

Am I doing one of the following?

===Examples of gravedancing may include:===

1. Insults/accusations/other behavior directed at editors who are now blocked or banned. This is motivated by the idea that the editor in question won't be able to respond to the comment. This is wrong even if the editor in question never sees it because it contributes to a negative environment that is less likely to encourage editors to work together.

2. Behaving as though a consensus is no longer valid simply because a blocked or banned editor contributed to it. Whilst consensus can change, the simple act of blocking does not change it - if you wish to overturn the previous consensus then further input should be sought.

3. Nominating articles for deletion based solely on a blocked/banned/retired editor being the one who started them or contributed to them.

4. Going through the [blocked] editor's edits and undoing them without justification in Wikipedia's policies.

5. Adding templates or categories to user pages of editors temporarily blocked (Special:BlockList already provides a way to list all blocked users).

So, which one am I doing in regards to @TarnishedPath, an editor that has not been blocked, banned, or retired? Is there a block on @TarnishedPath that I don't know about? Mkstokes (talk) 02:16, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mkstokes, the admin's comments were directed at me for me to take onboard. There's no need to get into a twist. TarnishedPath^talk 02:21, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry I wasn't able to respond to your ping in a timely manner before your dispute with TarnishedPath escalated as it did. To answer your original question (which I'd understand if you no longer care about), it depends on your interpretation of WP:ABOUTSELF. If you have doubts as to whether the video is usable in that regard, you are always free to remove the citation where possible or post to the article talk page. I only know a little bit about Katt Williams personally, so I can't really say what the single best action to take would be for that article. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 00:52, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a report involving you at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement regarding a possible violation of an Arbitration Committee decision. The thread is Mkstokes. Thank you. TarnishedPath^talk 14:21, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement topic ban

The following topic ban now applies to you:

You are indefinitely topic banned from making edits related to Nick McKenzie or Peter Schiff, broadly construed.

You have been sanctioned pursuant to the consensus result of attained in an arbitration enforcement request.

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

If you wish to appeal the ban, please read the appeals process. You are free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 02:57, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted your recent edits to Talk:Nick McKenzie. It may not be adequately clear from the notice above, but being banned from a topic is generally taken to mean that you are forbidden from editing any articles or participating in any discussions related to the topic anywhere on Wikipedia, not just from editing the specific article. This will be the only warning you receive; future violations will be enforced with blocks. Thank you. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:50, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I also must warn you, based on this and this, that using a second account or editing while logged out to evade scrutiny is very strictly forbidden. I think you did so inadvertently, but from now on please make sure that you are logged in before you edit. Thank you. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:56, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ivanvector Thank you for the warnings! I didn't realize that I also wasn't allowed to comment on the talk page. I thought this was just a ban on editing the article. As for the using a second account, I forgot to login when I edited the talk page and quickly corrected it. Mkstokes (talk) 16:11, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Fani Willis

I noticed you added a countdown timer. Did you try to get it closed early, and couldn't? Thanks. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:19, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I did request closure. I was told it required an overwhelming consensus and it's not enough, which is fair. Mkstokes (talk) 22:49, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

March 2024

To enforce an arbitration decision, you have been blocked from editing Wikipedia for a period of 31 hours Wikipedia. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block or other sanctions.

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

Doug Weller talk 11:59, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I fully understand the parameters of this block and will comply to the fullest. Mkstokes (talk) 12:11, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

This is embarrassing. I'm sorry to say the block was meant to be for a month, until Mon, 15 Apr 2024 14:34:04 GMT as logged at [Special:Diff/1213837215] So despite the block notice saying 31 says, the actual expiry date is in a month. You are as always allowed to appeal. Doug Weller talk 14:39, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No problem Doug. You are an excellent and very well respected editor, so I believe your judgement here is unimpeachable. I admit I have been quite animated over the events of the past several months. I appreciate notification of the correction. Mkstokes (talk) 14:44, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your gracious response. Hopefully there won't be anymore problems going forward. It might help a lot if you withdrew your block request at ANI concerning TarnishedPath. Doug Weller talk 14:57, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how to withdraw a block request when I'm blocked from making any edits on any Wikipedia pages except my own. However, I give you proxy to do it on my behalf. Mkstokes (talk) 15:27, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Doug Weller talk 15:41, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome, and congratulations on the success of your Chemo! I'm logging off in a few minutes, but if you need anything from me regarding this issue, just email me. I'm taking a Wikipedia break for a month. Mkstokes (talk) 16:07, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 18: / Line 18: @@
 Please cease [[WP:CANVASSING]] like you did at [[Special:Diff/1194947781]] and [[Special:Diff/1194948602]]. Additionally you need to cease any further personal attacks like you did at [[Special:Diff/1194975996]]. Further behaviour may result in reports to noticeboards. ''[[User:TarnishedPath|<b style="color:#ff0000;">Tar</b><b style="color:#ff7070;">nis</b><b style="color:#ffa0a0;">hed</b><b style="color:#420000;">Path</b>]]''<sup>[[User talk:TarnishedPath|<b style="color:#bd4004;">talk</b>]]</sup> 23:07, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
-== McKenzie talk page ==
-[[File:Nuvola apps important.svg|25px|alt=Warning icon]] Please stop. If you continue to assume bad faith when dealing with other editors, as you did at [[:Nick McKenzie]], you may be [[Wikipedia:Blocking policy|blocked from editing]]. Assume that they are here to improve rather than harm Wikipedia.<!-- Template:uw-agf3 -->
-Please consider the many messages from users on the article talk page concerning this.
-<br>[[User:SPECIFICO |<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b>]][[User_talk:SPECIFICO | ''talk'']] 18:23, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
 == Case request declined ==