User talk:Mbsyl

Welcome!

Some cookies to welcome you!

Welcome to Wikipedia, Mbsyl! Thank you for your contributions. I am Barkeep49 and I have been editing Wikipedia for some time, so if you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. You can also check out Wikipedia:Questions or type {{help me}} at the bottom of this page. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• Introduction
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• How to write a great article
• Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that will automatically produce your username and the date. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:02, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

thanks barkeep49! Mbsyl (talk) 21:02, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Important notices, please read:

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.

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 living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. 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.

Tsumiki⧸ 🌹🌉 05:41, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

thanksMbsyl (talk) 17:02, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

@Mbsyl: If you would like to open a talk page discussion, I'd be interested in participating. Benjamin (talk) 23:49, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Antifa_(United_States)#Paul_Welch here you go Benjamin Mbsyl (talk) 08:24, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	For your earnest attempts to learn the ropes on IRC. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:58, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

You need to stop making personal comments about other editors

See assume good faith. Please also note that using a talk page under American politics discretionary sanctions to attack the views of another editor could be seen as a breach of those sanctions if it became a habitual pattern. Doug Weller talk 09:57, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

User:Doug Weller can you tell me how i am attacking their views or making personal comments about them? i have reviewed the AGF page. would you think its proper that you suggest that i make a case to show "presence of obvious evidence" of 'bad faith' before suggesting that i am attacking their views? and i thought we were supposed to challenge each other's views. do you mean attack them personally?

all i did was note that they seem to have a bias in their editing pattern, and that their user and talk page have evidence that supports that they would have bias. and just look at how they made a weak excuse for not including the possible antifa murder from a mother jones article (implying that mother jones doesn't know what antifa means), after they JUST cited mother jones as an RS about a different antifa story. was their implying that i may be a proud boy an attack on me (which is the exact mirror of what i did, but they are doing it with less evidence), considering that they claim proud boys are 'neo-fascist' and in the city where i live that label basically gives antifa free reign to target me??

also, please note that they seem tohave not AGF when they deleted my Chris Hedges quote saying it was from "the POV edits attracted by the recent protest." Mbsyl (talk) 15:19, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

You might benefit from the comments to this editor who was blocked for personal attacks at the same talk page.[1] Doug Weller talk 14:25, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

i will check it out. thanks for the link. i hope you look more closely at Tsumikiria, as they are not AGF many times, are undoing good edits, and are abandoning talk page discussions once they can no longer make a compelling case for their argument (rather than admitting they were wrong.) Mbsyl (talk) 18:49, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Article talk pages

As you are new you can't know everything about Wikipedia. I've been around 13 years and have over 200,000 edits and there's still much I don't know. There is often a tendency to use article talk pages as though they were a web forum, in particular to start discussing the subject of the article, eg is Antifa good or bad, rather than the article itself. You're doing that at times. Take a look at WP:TPNO. Doug Weller talk 14:28, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

thank you for the advice. i can say that i agree that i am probably going off topic sometimes, albeit not very far off topic and not very often. Mbsyl (talk) 18:51, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

August 2019

Please assume good faith in your dealings with other editors, which you did not do on Talk:Antifa (United States). Assume that they are here to improve rather than harm Wikipedia. Doug Weller talk 18:44, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Mbsyl, we all have personal opinions. Personally, I'm disgusted by antifa, have no problem with well sourced, WP:DUE additions, and wish they would just go away. BUT, our own opinions are not relevant. As an encyclopedia, we must be very careful with highly negative allegations. MJ is generally considered a reliable source, although biased and to be attributed in controversial areas. Something as dramatic as a claim of murder must be very well sourced. In this case, it didn't even occur as per the legal definition. Only a judge or jury can state that a murder occurred under US law. O3000 (talk) 21:19, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

O3000 MJ has a far left bias, and they still list Morrison's death in their history of antifa violence, so what does that tell you?? as i have said many times, MJ has been covering anti-fascism for a long time, maybe longer than any other RS, so i feel like, though they may not be totally accurate or in depth with this story, they know what 'antifascist' means. and FSU's description fits perfectly with antifa's description. also, i didn't claim antifa murdered someone, i said that an antifa was "arrested and charged with the murder of James Morrison, following a confrontation at a punk concert in New Jersey" as cited from Rolling Stone. i think at the very least there should be a mention of this, and maybe some of the other FSU killings. it seems like the whole 'what is antifa' question is mostly used to duck responsibility for the bad things that people in their 'movement' do. is there even 1 example of someone on the far left here questioning if the person was really antifa when someone tries to add something to the article that portrays antifa in a good light? it seems pretty clear to me that 'antifa' are people on the far left who use violence, intimidation, and deplatforming to oppose people they view as racist or fascist. AFAIK no one fighting fascism via the traditional non-violent, patient, strategic methods calls themselves 'antifa.'

so what does that tell you Doesn't tell me anything useful in an encyclopedia because we are not here to speculate. No one was arrested for murder. No one was indicted for anything at all that I can find. We already have text stating that antifa is violent. We have zero evidence of murder. We don't try to connect the dots. The connection between this bar fight and antifa are so slim, I don't have enough breadcrumbs to find my way home. Sorry, but I'm done now. O3000 (talk) 21:46, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

we're not here to speculate? what does that mean? we just cite what RS say? i just showed you the quote from Rolling Stone that says Franklin was charged with murder. follow the big loaves of bread to a world where antifa is clearly linked with FSU by shared mission statements, an article from a far left magazine that has been covering antifascism for 20 years, the FSU wiki page, the description of what happened in Rolling Stone (someone being attacked violently due to perceived racism by a group devoted to such things.) i also don't see how its relevant that there's already stuff in wikipedia about them being violent. why shouldn't their most notable violent incidents be clearly cataloged like the Proud Boys page? especially when its largely their violence that distinguishes them as a group Mbsyl (talk) 00:27, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

August 2019

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially, as the page in question is currently under restrictions from the Arbitration Committee, if you violate the one-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than one revert on a single page with active Arbitration Committee restrictions within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the one-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the one-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

• Your edit at Antifa (United States) is a violation of WP:1RR. I suggest you use the talk page and not try this again. O3000 (talk) 00:30, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

its funny you cite 1RR, because as far as I can tell, you are the one who broke the rule. "If you revert a change and someone re-reverts it, discuss it with the re-reverter rather than reverting it a second time." - you reverted it a 2nd time instead of talking to me about it on the talk page. and then you send me a warning about being in an edit war and don't send a warning to the other person. i really hope you can explain this all to me and maybe also go back to our previous discussion on my talk page, which you stopped participating in.Mbsyl (talk) 01:10, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Acroterion (talk) 02:17, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

August 2019 again

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you.

Your deletion of reliably sourced content under claims that major outlets such as GQ are not reliable to report whether hoaxes have occured is clearly disruptive and, considering your past efforts to insert WP:ATTACK elements into the Antifa page, present a pretty unambiguous example of disruptive editing. I've cautioned you twice at article talk to self-revert. Please comply. Simonm223 (talk) 16:29, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Important things not mentioned in the US Antifa wiki article

Paul Welch - Bernie Sanders supporter attacked and robbed of US flag by antifa in broad daylight in front of large crowd who did nothing. covered in 2 RS. no mention in the antifa article.

Andy Ngo - journalist who has written for several large conservative publications, assaulted by antifa multiple times. no mention.

James Morrison - death linked to FSU (antifa group) - not mentioned.

Connor Betts - mass murderer who counter-demonstrated against KKK, tweeted support of antifa. not mentioned.

Mark Rudd - co-founder of Weather Underground far left terror group, sees his old self in antifa. Opinion on antifa deemed irrelevant

WP:BLP applies on all pages, including your own. I'll ignore the text above although it is inappropriate on your talk page, but you are not allowed to make defamatory comments about real people anywhere. "Socialism" is not 'far left". If you don't want to be topic banned from American politics and biographies of living people, you need to be more careful about what you write. Doug Weller talk 08:01, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

what defamatory comments? i don't get the socialisim/far left reference and i disagree that socialism isn't far left.Mbsyl (talk) 15:28, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Doug Weller can you explain to me what you are referring to?Mbsyl (talk) 15:53, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

The edit I deleted from the above list. Doug Weller talk 15:58, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Doug Weller How was the Chris Hedges part defamatory? Mbsyl (talk) 17:44, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Whether or not you disagree is no basis for edits. Please read our article on socialism. Socialism is the big tent of the left, and it effectively defines the left in he broad sense. It is not, however, "far-left:" that is reserved for various kinds of communism, Maoism and the like. If you don't understand this, you shouldn't be making edits that characterize politics. Acroterion (talk) 16:50, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Acroterion That's a very strong assertion, especially considering its based on one possible error that you didn't even explain. Can you give me an RS to back up your definition of far left, since you are using this definition to suggest I should be banned from editing political articles? You talk as if "far left" has one accepted meaning. Even the far left politics wiki article lists democratic socialists on the far left. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polysemy

No, Polysemy doesn't say that. We don't use our articles as sources, and Far-left politics doesn't mention the US. What you have two Administrators saying, (and I was on the Arbitration Committee that developed these sanctions) is that you can't make defamatory statements about people, and your was defamatory. If his article said, with reliable sources, what you said, it wouldn't be. But it doesn't. There's no point in arguing this. Doug Weller talk 18:29, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Doug Weller Sorry, but I am really lost here. I made a defamatory statement because I said Chris Hedges is far left and his wiki article (which says he's anarchist) doesn't say that? But I can't cite his wiki article as proof that it does say that because we don't use our articles as sources? Sorry, I am trying to understand, but I'm struggling.Mbsyl (talk) 11:19, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Everything with "socialist" in its name is not "far left." France's socialist governments weren't far-left - the Communist party was to their left, and social democrats, who employ some socialist principles, are not "far left." (They're not the same thing as democtratic socialists). In some very conservative circles these days, Eisenhower Republicans could be considered left-wing. That's not mainstream thought in political science, nor is broadly-defined socialism considered radical. You can't place stock in any given label. If this is all news to you, I don't think you have a deep enough background to make assertions in encyclopedia articles about politics. Acroterion (talk) 18:51, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

I looked at the socialism article and searched far left. One result: " Sasha Issenberg (9 January 2010). "Sanders a growing force on the far, far left". Boston Globe." Should this article be removed since this person, according to your logic, has no business writing about politics? I can't place stock in any label given, but apparently labels are so well defined that if someone slightly misuses one in your opinion, it means they have very little understanding of politics?? Sorry, but I am not following your logic here. I think you are being pretty aggressive in implying that I should be banned for using one term wrong (in your opinion, and after you said 'you can't place stock in any given label.') I am not 'making assertions' in articles so much as I am quoting from RS and primary sources that I think should not be controversial. I don't know why you are being so aggressive with me. You are implying I should be banned because I think socialism can be called far left, and while there is an article in the socialism wiki article that says Bernie Sanders is far left And you say yourself that you can't 'put stock in any label.' Not to mention the way I used 'far left' in question was accurate according to Chris Hedges' own wiki article description and your definition of far left. Mbsyl (talk) 11:19, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

No, Sasha Isssenberg nowhere calls Sanders far left. That's a headline written by a headline writer and all too typically happy to exaggerate what the article actually says. That's why we don't use headlines. No where does Hedges' article call him far left. So long as you9 keep your opinions to yourself, no one cares. It's why you try to use them on Wikipedia that people care. Our article on socialism doesn't call it far-left. Far-left politics in the United Kingdom does show the type of ideologies and parties that are far-left. Basically they are usually revolutionary. (I did major in political science at Yale so I probably know more than you do about the academic perspective) You could go to WP:BLPN and ask, but you must stop doing this now. Yes, I know the right in America often considers anything left of the Republican part left or far-left, but that's simply wrong. Now please stop this until you can get agreement at BLPN or on Chris Hedges' page that he's far-left. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug Weller (talk • contribs) 12:51, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

i thought i pretty much was keeping my opinions to myself by posting a little reminder for myself on my talk page. the far left politics article includes anarchism under 'far left' and chris hedges article says he's anarchist, so i feel like this is kind of silly to debate. and i'm not even that concerned about the 'far left' title. so should i not make any notes on my talk page that may go against BLP policies? i was told that so long as i don't use my 'wikipedia voice' that it should be okay, as sourcing rules don't apply. if i change the note to 'anarchist chris hedges' would that be okay? also, in response to your Republican comment, i just thought i would mention that i grew up listening to noam chomsky a lot and consider myself 'far left.' i think a lot of people don't realize that not everyone who is very critical of antifa is on the right, even though there are many on the left who are very critical of antifa.Mbsyl (talk) 13:17, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

BLP applies on all pages. Doug Weller talk 19:50, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Again, please assume good faith and don't accuse editors of compulsively editing

Doug Weller talk 21:29, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Or indeed of serpentine lawyering. Doug Weller talk 09:03, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

i didn't realize 'compulsive' was derogatory. i just mean that there's a group of editors on the antifa US article that seem to habitually edit and basically control what happens to the article and i would like to see some the WP community at large weigh in. and i wasn't saying you were a serpentine lawyer, but when i debate things in the antifa Talk page, i get the sense that people are just trying to bombard me with nonsense and rules instead of trying to really look at things sincerely. sorry, but that is just the sense that i get. i am still new to WP editing, so i am very open to the possibility of my being wrong. and i'm not naming or shaming anyone - even those who describe themselves as antifa on their user pages and/or seem to not want to let anything negative into the antifa article and/or don't AGF with me and don't get called out for it.Mbsyl (talk) 19:43, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Adding unsourced defamatory material into a BLP

Please stop adding unreferenced or poorly referenced biographical content, especially if controversial, to articles or any other Wikipedia page, as you did at Suze Oman. Content of this nature could be regarded as defamatory and is in violation of Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Doug Weller talk 09:04, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

I forgot, in case you don't get pings for some reason, I brought up your edit at WP:BLPN. Doug Weller talk 09:06, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

thanks for the ping and i really doubt that i said anything defamatory about Suze Orman. i said she lied about having a master's degree, which she is shown saying in the documentary, and i paraphrased something she said on film that anyone can watch on Youtube/Politico - Solving for Y with Elizabeth Warren. Mbsyl (talk)

BLP violation at Gregory McKelvey

There does not appear to be any reason to include information about a person's unrelated crimes in the biography of another living person - this could be construed as guilt by association. If reliable sources discussed the two in context (for example, a source said that one person assisted in covering up those crimes), then there would be some relevance - but that does not appear to be the case here. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:06, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

there's no reason to include that one of his org's leaders has been found guilty of sexually abusing 6 minors and that the org organized with high schoolers? that seems like a pretty important piece of Portland Resistance history that is being swept under the rug. i'm including it in the Portland Resistance section, so it is very relevant. if you want to make a Portland Resistance article, maybe it would be better over there? Mbsyl (talk) 03:24, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

You would be welcome to write such an article. That is not grounds for adding it to an unrelated article. If you reinsert it, I will file an Arbitration Enforcement request asking for a topic ban. @Doug Weller:, you may be interested given your previous warnings here. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:42, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

it is the best place to put this important information at this time. i welcome doug's opinion and am curious to see if you get in trouble for making 2 reverts on the same article in 1 day. Mbsyl (talk) 03:58, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm not going to make any content comments here - I've tried before to explain policy and failed. I will point out that there is no 1RR restriction on that article. Doug Weller talk 11:47, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

January 2020

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy by inserting unsourced or poorly sourced defamatory or otherwise controversial content into an article or any other Wikipedia page, as you did at Talk:Gregory McKelvey. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 13:14, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

what was poorly sourced? you might be blocked for harassing editors over made-up accusations. nothing i wrote was poorly sourced or defamatory. ironically, this accusation is poorly sourced and defamatory. i just saw what you are referring to now...wow. the one thing i think i may have said wrong was that he is affiliated with a 6 time abuser of kids. micah rhodes is that, but he was only found guilty of 3 or 4 at the last known time they were published as being affiliated in an RS and it wasn't public knowledge at that time that micah had abused kids as far as i know. still, gregory lead an organization that organized high schoolers with someone who was later found out to have been abusing kids...and this deserves no mention? Mbsyl (talk) 13:41, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Your text brings up the extreme sensational line: “sexually abusing 6 minors”. You give three cites. One makes no mention of McKelyey. The other two make no mention of sexual abuse. This may be the most egregious example of WP:SYNTH I’ve yet seen. O3000 (talk) 13:55, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

excuse me? i think you are way off here. the RS links I provided show that they were both leaders of Portland Resistance, that Portland Resistance organized high schoolers, and that Rhodes has abused 6 kids. so this section can only pertain to gregory's involvement with Portland Resistance because it is on his page? i don't think my edit was implying that he was involved in abusing kids, but it shows questionable judgment and this is a major story that he is connected with due to his affiliation with rhodes and their shared leadership of the organization, no?Mbsyl (talk) 14:03, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

You are literally giving the definition of association fallacy. O3000 (talk) 14:09, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

okay, so if i make a Portland Resistance page, since no one else seems to think its important to put this information on wikipedia and yet somehow this gregory guy needs to have a wiki page...anyways...so if i do that, and i say that it was led by micah rhodes and gregory, which is cited in RS, and that micah rhodes was later found out to have been abusing kids, which is cited in RS, though not necessarily kids that they were organizing together, is that association fallacy? can i not mention those facts together anywhere? does micah rhodes' sex abuse history need to be his own wiki page? thanks for your patience Mbsyl (talk) 14:15, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

What you appear to be asking is if there is some way under WP guidelines that you can tie McKelvey to sexual abuse of minors. O3000 (talk) 14:19, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

you seem to have a frequent issue with AGF, but i will do my best to ignore it. what i am asking is, why can't it be shared in the Portland Resistance section or, if need be in a Portland Resistance page, that Portland Resistance, which organized high schoolers, was ran partly by someone who RS says has abused 6 minors. how is this guy's page notable, but what I am suggesting isn't? if you were a parent, you would want to know this information. there may be kids that were abused by Rhodes and the parents know the kid went to Portland Resistance events, but didn't know about Rhodes. now make a similar argument for how important gregory's page is if you dare and/or tell me why I am wrong to want to publish this edit. Mbsyl (talk) 14:31, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

January 2020 II

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you make personal attacks on other people. Comment on content, not on fellow editors.

• Your suggestion that someone is defending a sex predator and concealing their crime[2] goes way beyond acceptable behavior. O3000 (talk) 19:26, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction

The following sanction now applies to you:

You are banned from edits concerning biographies of living persons, interpreted broadly, for one year. This includes all project spaces, including talkpages.

You have been sanctioned for persistently failing to adhere to required standards of talkpage conduct and for a pattern of violations of Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy.

This sanction 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 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) 01:58, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

This topic ban was imposed primarily on the basis of your behavior at Talk:Gregory McKelvey, part of a broad pattern of BLP-violating edits and speculation about living persons. Acroterion (talk) 02:00, 27 January 2020 (UTC)