User talk:Kyohyi

October 2015
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
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)
 * 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
 Acroterion   (talk)   17:51, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Zoë Quinn
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 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 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?  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:  [],[], [], [], [], [], [], [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)

Alert
&mdash; Coffee //  have a ☕️ //  beans  // 09:15, 22 January 2018 (UTC) 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)

AGF
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)

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

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at 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)

El_C 19:04, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

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

Important Notice
Doug Weller talk 14:25, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

DS 2021 Review Update
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)

Discretionary sanctions topic area changes
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 Arbitration/Requests/Motions. --Barkeep49 (talk) 16:59, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions topic area changes
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 Arbitration/Requests/Motions. --Barkeep49 (talk) 04:36, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for Tucker Undo
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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WirmerFlagge (talk • contribs) 20:44, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Update: Phase II of DS reform now open for comment
You were either a participant in WP:DS2021 (the Arbitration Committee's Discretionary Sanctions reform process) or requested to be notified about future developments regarding DS reform. The Committee now presents Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions/2021-22_review/Phase_II_consultation, and invites your feedback. Your patience has been appreciated. For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:01, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions notices
Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:03, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions for BLP's
Peleio Aquiles (talk) 20:55, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions review: proposed decision and community review
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to updates on the Arbitration Committee's discretionary sanctions review process. The Proposed Decision phase of the discretionary sanctions review process has now opened. A five-day public review period for the proposed decision, before arbitrators cast votes on the proposed decision, is open through November 18. Any interested editors are invited to comment on the proposed decision talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:56, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. 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 2022 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 to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:10, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Contentious topics procedure adopted
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to updates on the Arbitration Committee's discretionary sanctions review process.

The Arbitration Committee has concluded the 2021-22 review of the contentious topics system (formerly known as discretionary sanctions), and its final decision is viewable at the revision process page. As part of the review process, the Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

This motion initiates a one-month implementation period for the updates to the contentious topics system. The Arbitration Committee will announce when the initial implementation of the Committee's decision has concluded and the amendments made by the drafting arbitrators in accordance with the Committee's decision take effect. Any editors interested in the implementation process are invited to assist at the implementation talk page, and editors interested in updates may subscribe to the update list.

For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:47, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Discuss this at: 

Contentious topics procedure now in effect
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to updates on the Arbitration Committee's contentious topics procedure revision process.

In December, the Arbitration Committee adopted the contentious topics procedure, which replaces the former discretionary sanctions system. The contentious topics procedure is now in effect following an initial implementation period. The drafting arbitrators warmly thank all those who have worked to implement the new procedure during this implementation period and beyond. KevinL ( aka L235 · t · c) 19:44, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
 * For a detailed summary of the changes from the discretionary sanctions system, see WP:DSVSCT.
 * A brief guide for administrators may be found at Contentious topics/Administrator instructions.
 * Updated templates may be found at Template:Contentious topics.
 * Suggestions and concerns may be directed to the arbitration clerk team at WT:AC/C.
 * Discuss this at: 

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. 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 2023 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 to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:42, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Reminder to vote now to select members of the first U4C

 * You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki. 

Dear Wikimedian,

You are receiving this message because you previously participated in the UCoC process.

This is a reminder that the voting period for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) ends on May 9, 2024. Read the information on the voting page on Meta-wiki to learn more about voting and voter eligibility.

The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is a global group dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. Community members were invited to submit their applications for the U4C. For more information and the responsibilities of the U4C, please review the U4C Charter.

Please share this message with members of your community so they can participate as well.

On behalf of the UCoC project team,

RamzyM (WMF) 23:09, 2 May 2024 (UTC)