User talk:Kyohyi

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

October 2015[edit]

Warning icon 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)

Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction[edit]

Commons-emblem-hand.svg 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)

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

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)

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)

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)
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)
@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)
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)
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)

BLP notice[edit]

Commons-emblem-notice.svg 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)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message[edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg 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)

Zoë Quinn[edit]

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)

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)
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)
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)