User talk:Mkstokes#Notice of Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard discussion

File:Chocolate chip cookies.jpg

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:

• Introductory tutorial
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• The Teahouse

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)

: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)

{{Ivmbox

|2=Commons-emblem-hand.svg

|imagesize=50px

|1=The following topic ban now applies to you:

{{Talkquote|1=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)

}}

: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)

:I also must warn you, based on [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Nick_McKenzie&diff=prev&oldid=1197940271 this] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Nick_McKenzie&diff=prev&oldid=1197945989 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)

::@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)

:@Red-tailed hawk, I am formally requesting that this WP:TBAN be reconsidered and ultimately lifted. Thank you. Mkstokes (talk) 15:18, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

::Hi @Mkstokes, there's instructions for appeals to sanctions near the top of WP:AE starting with the text "For appeals:" TarnishedPath^talk 21:52, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Yes, @TarnishedPath, I know. That's why I started the first step. It says, "ask the administrator who first made the contentious topic restrictions (the "enforcing administrator") to reconsider their original decision." I have made that request. I'd rather not here from you in this regard as "Only the restricted editor may appeal an editor restriction." Please keep your comments to yourself, okay? I'm still trying to respect our WP:IBAN. Please do the same. Mkstokes (talk) 04:51, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

::::We don't have an IBAN, but you do you. TarnishedPath^talk 05:01, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

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)

: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)

::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)

:::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)

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

:::::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)

::::::Have a good break. I think it’s likely that the other editor meant it,but you can delete most things from your talk page. Wikipedia:User pages I delete some stuff but mainly WP:ARCHIVE. Doug Weller talk 20:04, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

:::::::I've looked at the original mess that led to that and asked TP to avoid you, ie a sort of voluntary iBan. I'm asking you to do the same. If anything like that flares up again I think the only solution will be a no fault imposed iBan. Doug Weller talk 12:07, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

::::::::I think a two-way WP:IBAN is very appropriate. To be blunt, he's repeatedly been shown by me and several other editors that his interpretation of Wikipedia policies and guidelines are just wrong. Especially his interpretation of WP:WEIGHT, WP:DUE and WP:UNDUE, which actually reference the exact same policy but he cites them as if they are separate policies. This got started again because I corrected him and he called my correction an insult. I readily admit it got way out of hand and when the block is lifted I will act as if I have an active IBAN with him. I do have a question for you though. Why is MaskedSinger allowed to be uncivil in almost every interaction with editors and have no administrative action against him? There are likely 100 or more times where he's been snarky, insulting, condescending, mocking, etc. yet continues on with impunity. I'll be self-imposing an IBAN with him as well, especially since he seems to have complete immunity. Mkstokes (talk) 15:25, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

:::::::::Thanks. I have no idea about your last question though as I've not seen them much. Sorry. Doug Weller talk 16:13, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

::::::::::I think you have an idea now, given his interaction regarding Israeli Atheletes, continued personal insults, and totally disrespectful behavior towards Admin @Bishonen. Once again, I have no intention of interacting with him when I return. But I'm still astounded that he's allowed to act like a jerk with impunity all over Wikipedia. Mkstokes (talk) 13:18, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

File:Copyright-problem.svg Your edit to :Miranda Devine has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for information on how to contribute your work appropriately. For legal reasons, Wikipedia strictly cannot host copyrighted text or images from print media or digital platforms without an appropriate and verifiable license. Contributions infringing on copyright will be removed. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. TarnishedPath^talk 05:29, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

:Thank you! The image is not formally copyrighted, but I have already formally requested Emily Stack Davis to fill out the requested copyright information at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requesting_copyright_permission. Thank you for your diligence in regards to every item that I post. You have been extremely helpful in my education regarding the innerworkings of Wikipedia. I look forward to future and constant updates from you regarding the content I provide. Mkstokes (talk) 15:05, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

::@Mkstokes, Miranda Devine is on my watchlist and has been for a long time. It should be no great surprise that they would be on my watchlist given they are an Australian columnist who writes about politics. TarnishedPath^talk 22:06, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

:::I agree with you 100% and I've expressed no such great surprise. I've also thanked you for your due diligence. So, once against, I appreciate your input and look forward to continued interaction on other items that I post. I will correct you on one point. Miranda Devine was formerly an Australian columnist. She does not live in Australia, wasn't born in Australia and is actually a Australian-American columnist for the New York Post. She hasn't been an Australian columnist for about a decade. I hope you have a wonderful day and keep up the good work! 🫡 Mkstokes (talk) 00:24, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Miranda Devine, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page New York. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ{{*}} Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, --DPL bot (talk) 07:56, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

From WP:TPG: "Talk pages are for improving the encyclopedia ... There is reasonable allowance for speculation, suggestion, and personal knowledge on talk pages, with a view to prompting further investigation, but it is usually a misuse of a talk page to continue to argue any point that has not met policy requirements. ... Keep discussions focused on how to improve the article." Please take that to heart. This response is not a productive way to respond to my point that if you have acceptable sourcing for all of the content you want to add, "then present it or make an appropriate edit to the article. Otherwise, there's no point in discussing it further, per WP:NOTFORUM." Focus on what improves the article, working within the constraints of WP's PAGs.

Also keep WP:CIVIL in mind when you're inclined to insult someone, condescend, etc. (e.g., "its beyond your expertise I think the concept eludes you. I'm trying to help you understand, but it's possible the Dunning-Kruger effect, "a cognitive bias where individuals with low competence in a particular area tend to overestimate their abilities" is in play," "you're well out of your depth here and obviously have no background whatsoever in American jurisprudence or the basics of law or legal theory. I understand cognitive dissonance and the overwhelming need to be correct."). These kinds of comments are disruptive. I encourage you to abide by WP's policies. FactOrOpinion (talk) 00:47, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

:Thank you @FactOrOpinion! I honestly didn't know about WP:TPG, WP:NOTFORUM or WP:CIVIL. I now understand what you've been talking about and appreciate you being so amazingly patient when explaining these concepts to me. I don't know how I could have ever possibly come to this understanding without your guidance. You have been a shining example of the perfect editor and I will go above and beyond to follow your shining example. Thank you. I feel seen and I appreciate your input. I don't know how I can ever repay you for this, but I'll spend the remainder of my time on Wikipedia doing my best to do you proud. You are my captain, oh captain! 🫡🇺🇸 Mkstokes (talk) 04:19, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

::Your sarcastic response indicates that you think this is all a game, which is too bad. FactOrOpinion (talk) 12:37, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

:::The fact that you don't know it's all a game is what's really bad and an overt indication you are a central part of that game and don't even know it. You are obviously well steeped in what I call WikiLanguage, the rules and policies of Wikipedia. Without question, you dutifully follow them with zero concern about them. The problem is that their primary source policy contradicts their neutral point of view policy. They consider the use of secondary sources to be most important and restrict the use of primary source. This is the exact opposite of any field of academic research. Thus facts are not facts until someone else says so. That someone else is Wikipedia's list of sources who have been deemed to be reliable. Who makes that list? WIKIPEDIA!!! So, an editor need only find a secondary source that agrees with their bias and is on the approved list and bingo, their narrative is allowed to be published. How is it neutral if the only opinions allowed to be citied are those of people with biased views? This also means, for example, if [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:FOXNEWSPOLITICS&redirect=no WP:FOXNEWSPOLITICS] says something that is 100% true, it can't be used in a citation because despite the information being true, it is "generally unreliable." Note that this is how FOX News is treated, not what Wikipedia says about how it should be treated. It actually says:

:::{{blockquote| text="As a result, Fox News is considered marginally reliable and generally does not qualify as a "high-quality source" for the purpose of substantiating exceptional claims in these topic areas. Editors perceive Fox News to be biased or opinionated for politics; USE IN-TEXT ATTRIBUTION FOR OPINIONS."}}

:::generally, /ˈjen(ə)rəlē/ adverb 1. in most cases; usually

:::exceptional, /ikˈsepSH(ə)nəl,ekˈsepSH(ə)nəl/ adjective 1. unusual; not typical.

:::

:::However, there is not a single FOX News citation on the Deportation of Kilmar Abrego Garcia article despite WP:RSPS saying it can be used. This is despite massive coverage of this news event by Fox News. So, what is the standard response from Wikipedia editors who are 100% sure the bias will remain "as-is" and nothing can be done about it? "If you want information to be contributed to the article, find reliable sources that assert something you think is notable and then that information can be included with attribution." or "If you have a problem with a given rule or policy, make a case for your position." or the ever present, "Reliability or facts have a leftwing bias." It's a fake reasonableness and just a game because they know absolutely nothing will change just as YOU know nothing will change. So the game goes on and on and because you're on the side the game favors, you're oblivious to it. I obviously don't expect you to understand any of this and have no doubt it's a complete waste of my time. But I was bored and had some free time, so I decided to respond anyway. Mkstokes (talk) 15:42, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

::::It isn't a game, and it shouldn't be considered a game, and I'm not part of a game, notwithstanding that that's what you believe about WP and about me. I believe WP provides useful content to readers who are looking to learn something, but is definitely imperfect. Its flaws can be seen both in mainspace (e.g., from perusing WP:TASK, and Wikipedia:Template_index/Cleanup, or comparing all of the coverage of a topic in RSs to the WP content and seeing how incomplete most WP articles are) and on the back end (e.g., by looking at the PAG talk archives or at the noticeboards). I try to work on improving it, and you could choose that too. Instead, you're posting a lot of disruptive content on Talk:Deportation of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, which takes other editors' time and energy away from improving the article.

::::I've published academic research involving the analysis of primary sources, so I'm well aware of their value (and aware of other things, like how interesting the work of analyzing them can be). But I also understand why they'd downgraded here: this is a tertiary source, not a site for OR. Might use of a specific court document for specific BLP content occasionally be an IAR situation? Maybe, but you'd need to make a convincing argument that the content you want to source to that court document cannot be sourced to a secondary RS, that the content is DUE, and that it's consistent with treating content about living persons more conservatively. You haven't done so on the Abrego Garcia article. You generally haven't tried to do so. The one time you tried, I pointed out to you that there actually was a secondary source quoting relevant content from the court document you wanted to cite. I don't think you introduced that into the article even after I pointed it out to you.

::::Your choice to say things like "you dutifully follow them with zero concern about them" is again false and insulting. It's again condescending. I follow them because I understand why they're there, and I recognize that PAGs can change through consensus, which I've accomplished a couple of times in small ways. But the place to do that is on the PAG talk pages, which is why I told you to take your concern about WP:BLPPRIMARY to WT:BLP.

::::You also seem to misunderstand how you go about using a downgraded source like Fox News Politics for specific content. As WP:CONTEXTMATTERS notes, reliability is context-dependent. Just make a good case for using a particular Fox article as a source for particular article content, raising that issue on the talk page or at WP:RSN. In contrast to how you've been using the talk page, that would be a legitimate discussion: say what info is available at Fox but not at a more reliable source, and say why you think that info is DUE in the article.

::::I don't know who you're quoting in your last paragraph, or if they're only intended to illustrate the kinds of responses you get, without being quotes of any particular person. "Reliability or facts have a leftwing bias" is BS. Reliable sources exist throughout the political spectrum, unreliable sources exist throughout the political spectrum, and many reliable sources are not political in the first place. Facts are facts no matter who cites them. As for "they know absolutely nothing will change just as YOU know nothing will change," do not attribute beliefs to me that aren't mine. FactOrOpinion (talk) 17:19, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::Facts are facts, huh. I have information that 100% factually accurate regarding MS-13. Everyone keeps referencing that MS-13 Westerns clique only operates out of Brentwood, Long Island in New York. But this so-called fact is based on no evidence whatsoever. In fact, Abrego Garcia's lawyer is the one that created this myth for obvious reasons. What what happens when this fact is presented and how easily it's disappeared. Mkstokes (talk) 17:57, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::I don't know who "everyone" is, and that's a discussion for the article's talk page, not here.

::::::I'm here because of your behavior, which is not a subject for the article's talk page. You need to address your disruptive behavior. FactOrOpinion (talk) 18:24, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

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. FactOrOpinion (talk) 00:23, 6 May 2025 (UTC)