User talk:09I500

You got it totally wrong, THEY are reverting my template. They are not allowed to remove the template without solving the dispute. It clearly says "don't remove it until the dispute is solved". There is plenty of talk on the talk page. Just because I didn't put any talk on the talk page doesn't mean I can't help other editors involved in a dispute. The subsection is a POV mess. Calling it a conspiracy theory is WP:UNDUE. The only source provided claiming it is a conspiracy is a weblog from a psychologist. 09I500 (talk) 10:15, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please read this notification carefully:
A

Gamergate controversy.
The details of these sanctions are described here

.

uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to these topics that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behaviour, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. An editor can only be sanctioned after he or she has been made aware that general sanctions are in effect. This notification is meant to inform you that sanctions are authorised in these topic areas, which you have been editing. It is only effective if it is logged here

. Before continuing to edit pages in these topic areas, please familiarise yourself with the general sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.

There is a discussion related to your conduct at Wikipedia:General_sanctions/Gamergate/Requests_for_enforcement. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 11:19, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits contravene Wikipedia policy and the reliable sources which support the section and discuss the fact that the allegations are false. Please desist, as you are simply digging the hole deeper and deeper. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 11:37, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stop your edit warring and

WP:Battleground behaviour. You are clearly on a personal crusade. Use the talk page of the article in question if you don't agree before pulling nonsense like this. 09I500 (talk) 11:42, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

To the contrary, it is your responsibility to demonstrate that your edits do not depict a living person in a false light, given the extensive sourcing for the word in question. The

biographies of living persons policy prohibits editors from using Wikipedia as a platform to express their personal opinions about living people, and requires that all material about living people be sourced to indisputable reliable sources — particularly contentious material. As it is impeccably sourced that the allegations are false, removing that word to change the meaning of the sentence against the reliable sources is prohibited. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 11:44, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

And the article does not depict any living person in a false light.09I500 (talk) 11:48, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's correct, because it describes the allegations in question as false, as the reliable sources extensively discuss. Mentioning the allegations without mentioning that they are false does depict a living person in a false light. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 11:49, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't, regardless of whether the allegations are false. The statement is entirely and factually correct. 09I500 (talk) 11:59, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Er, no. That's

lying by omission, quite obviously. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 12:02, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Simply choosing not to mention something does not equal lying by omission. We're also not mentionning what the allegations are about. Is that lying? Obviously not. 09I500 (talk) 12:09, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:09I500 reported by User:NorthBySouthBaranof (Result: ). Thank you. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 12:37, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In accordance with the community-imposed sanctions (and those soon to be endorsed by the arbitration committee), you are now also topic-banned, for an indefinite period, from all edits related to the Gamergate controversy, broadly construed. This includes edits both on article content and in discussions. The

WP:AC/DS) contains information on how to appeal this sanction. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:14, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

I have not treated any wikipedia page as a battleground, nor any talk page. I have simply enforcing Wikipedia policy, including

WP:BLP and WP:Libel

.

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.

This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:34, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To enforce an arbitration decision and for violating your topic ban immediately after its imposition, and BLP violations immediately after being notified of the BP discretionary sanctions, you have been blocked indefinitely from editing.

If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard I suggest you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:44, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

---

Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted a procedure instructing administrators as follows: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."

@

As a courtesy, please ping me when replying. 01:15, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

09I500 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Please copy my appeal to the

administrators' noticeboard. I am enforcing BLP policy. 09I500 (talk) 23:50, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Decline reason:

This edit and this one were clearly violations of your topic ban. In the context, those edits were also clearly intended to be disruptive to

talk) 14:49, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I should not be blocked here for BLP violations. Especially not from rape and gender related articles as I have not even touched those never before. The irony here is that I am using the exact same terms that I learned from the Gamergate controversy article. The lede used to have in it for a long time "false allegations against Zoe Quinn" and it still has it now in another section. I think it's incredibly stupid that I am blocked for enforcing BLP yet it is the exact same way how others enforce BLP. 09I500 (talk) 23:50, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) Can you tell us what exactly what you want copied to

As a courtesy, please ping me when replying. 01:16, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply

]