Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add defamatory content, you may be blocked from editing. Acroterion (talk) 17:22, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The following sanction now applies to you:

Standard six-month sanction on all GamerGate-related topics, to run until March 22, 2016

You have been sanctioned Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate#Final decision and, if applicable, the procedure described at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions

This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate#Final decision and, if applicable, the procedure described at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.

You may appeal this sanction using the process described here. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. Acroterion (talk) 17:32, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, I ask for clarification, and get a topic ban. --Kyohyi (talk) 17:33, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, you made a blatantly inappropriate edit with a misleading edit summary and you got topic-banned. Acroterion (talk) 17:39, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Um, no. The terminology is right from the source, and the second sentence is unsourced. If this is your rationale then I will probably appeal this to AE. --Kyohyi (talk) 17:41, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your exercise in "tightening up" a BLP doesn't require making the concise summary an exercise in prurient shaming in a BLP. You may wish to read WP:BLP again, especially the "exercise great caution" part. Acroterion (talk) 17:49, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

BLP also requires that we not use "conjectural interpretation of sources". This includes stating "positive coverage" instead of "reviews" --Kyohyi (talk) 17:58, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Acroterion: Can you email me what you redacted? If it's what I suspect it is, then it's not actually a BLP violation (what I think it is has been in the Gamergate controversy article for months). Brustopher (talk) 18:07, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well it wasn't what I expected... But yeah there is absolutely no justification for a topic ban here. Kyohyi inserted no defamatory information. The worst he can be accused of is using tasteless language, but it's the exact same tasteless language the source uses. Even the revdel seems unnecessary. Kyohyi does good work keeping a lot of Manosphere/Gamergate related topics BLP policy compliant, and it would definitely be a net negative to take them away from the topic area. Please reconsider. Brustopher (talk) 18:22, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As always, I'm willing to reconsider and am willing to withdraw the sanction if this can be shown to be a good-faith misunderstanding. Brustopher, I'll email you. Acroterion (talk) 22:54, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Acroterion (talk) 17:51, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Kyohyi. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Look, if "[you are] unable to edit and check sources to what [you] see as a sufficient standard", as your user page says, stay out of BLPs. I didn't know Acroterion topic banned you from GamerGate, and while this series of reverts doesn't rise to the level of an infraction, it doesn't reflect well on you. I moved the note to the main text, hoping that that will appease you a bit, but as Dumuzid said, it provides relevant context. Moreover, your edit summary was at least partly (if not mostly or wholly) incorrect: this is not an opinion piece. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 16:29, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not interested in a pissing match with you DrMies. The article is a book review, reviews by their nature are opinions, that's what makes it an opinion piece. Further, I'm rejecting that Ars technica is a reliable source on a persons emotional state, the writer nor the publication have the expertise to make that judgement call. BLP applies to Eron Gjoni just as much as any other living person. --Kyohyi (talk) 16:34, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You know what? Acroterion please come and evaluate this situation. If I'm really in the wrong on this please, and I'm serious on this, please topic ban me from BLP's, and Gamergate. I'm just utterly flabbergasted that a book review is considered a reliable source about someone being scorned, further that this can get stated in Wikipedia's voice. Here are the recent changes to date: [[1]],[[2]], [[3]], [[4]], [[5]], [[6]], [[7]], [we had to stop it with the tools we had at the time21] --Kyohyi (talk) 17:02, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to offer an opinion on the reverts except to note that Kyohyi's concerns about BLP seem misplaced - the article's not the unambiguous mess/troll magnet that it was two years ago. The only issue at hand is sourcing, and that's subject to consensus. The topic ban is ancient history as far as I'm concerned - it came at a time when we had fewer tools to deal with a tide of salacious speculation/accusation, and at its height in the fall of 2015 we had to stop it with the tools we had at the time. Nowadays, as a direct result of GamerGate we don't have to employ so many blunt instruments like topic bans, and we are in general more proactive about trouble spots. Kyohyi's topic ban came as a result of what appeared to be a misplaced sense of concern (I had to go back and look at events from that time) that ended up restoring speculation about people's private lives. Nothing in the current discussion rises to that level, nor is there ongoing disruption. Acroterion (talk) 02:11, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

— Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 09:15, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Came here to make sure you had this arbcom notice. Please note that there are active AP2 remediations at Andy Ngo. Simonm223 (talk) 13:09, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What on earth gave you the impression that you could remove my comment here? That's a bad faith move, and a WP:TALK violation on your part. It's not your page. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 17:42, 26 April 2018 (UTC) BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 17:42, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oops! Sorry about that. Wrong diff. I see now that it was a misclick. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 18:07, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Kyohyi. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Simonm223 (talk) 19:00, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

El_C 19:04, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:15, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:32, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was policing BLP before there was even a policy. It is not a violation to note the parallels between Carlson's rhetoric and white supremacist talking points, when that parallel has been drawn on national TV - especially in the context of a previous writer for Carlson having been fired for being a white supremacist. Guy (help! - typo?) 20:30, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your original research is noted. However it's not appropriate on Wikipedia. --Kyohyi (talk) 20:39, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Doug Weller talk 14:25, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Kyohyi,

Thank you for participating in the recent discretionary sanctions community consultation. We are truly appreciative of the range of feedback we received and the high quality discussion which occurred during the process. We have now posted a summary of the feedback we've received and also a preview of some of what we expect to happen next. We hope that the second phase, a presentation of draft recommendations, will proceed on time in June or early July. You will be notified when this phase begins, unless you choose to to opt-out of future mailings by removing your name here.
--Barkeep49 & KevinL (aka L235) 21:05, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:36, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In a process that began last year with WP:DS2021, the Arbitration Committee is evaluating Discretionary Sanctions (DS) in order to improve it. A larger package of reforms is slated for sometime this year. From the work done so far, it became clear a number of areas may no longer need DS or that some DS areas may be overly broad.

The topics proposed for revocation are:

• Senkaku islands
• Waldorf education
• Ancient Egyptian race controversy
• Scientology
• Landmark worldwide

The topics proposed for a rewording of what is covered under DS are:

• India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan
• Armenia/Azerbaijan

Additionally any Article probation topics not already revoked are proposed for revocation.

Community feedback is invited and welcome at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions. --Barkeep49 (talk) 16:59, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In a process that began last year with WP:DS2021, the Arbitration Committee is evaluating Discretionary Sanctions (DS) in order to improve it. A larger package of reforms is slated for sometime this year. From the work done so far, it became clear a number of areas may no longer need DS or that some DS areas may be overly broad.

The topics proposed for revocation are:

• Senkaku islands
• Waldorf education
• Ancient Egyptian race controversy
• Scientology
• Landmark worldwide

The topics proposed for a rewording of what is covered under DS are:

• India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan
• Armenia/Azerbaijan

Additionally any Article probation topics not already revoked are proposed for revocation.

Community feedback is invited and welcome at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions. --Barkeep49 (talk) 04:36, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for undoing my edit. was just making sure that there are still some sane people on this garbage rag. i would have undid it myself. but i was gonna screenshot the time it took.