Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, Kolya Butternut. I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:

• Introduction
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• How to write a great article
• Editor's index to Wikipedia

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page, consult Wikipedia:Questions, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there.

Again, welcome! Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 13:26, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve been following the different Generation-related articles for a while now and I see that there’s currently a conflict going on over at the Xennials article. I ran into the same issues with the editor on two different Generation articles [1][2] where the user basically thinks that they own the Generation-related articles, is misrepresenting sources to push their non-neutral POV against reliable sources, is unwilling to compromise and tries to shut down any discussions on the talk pages until the other editors eventually relent and leave. Not sure what can be done about this user’s pattern of disruptive behavior on these articles. Someone963852 (talk) 23:39, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Someone963852:, want to email me about it? --Kolya Butternut (talk) 14:52, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, I've alerted an admin about the user's pattern of disruptive behavior [3]. Hopefully something can be done about this. Someone963852 (talk) 03:34, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Someone963852: Thanks! I've been meaning to get to it, but if you look at Talk:Xennials you'll see there's so much manipulation to sift through. Looks like the user tried to get ahead of it by emailing the admin first, or they're reporting me for what I've said (the harsh truth). Kolya Butternut (talk) 03:49, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I find it comical that the user emailed the admin right after the editor that pushed the same POV that they pushed got blocked. And the email's most likely accusing me or you of being socks of someone else, or us being the same person. Someone963852 (talk) 03:55, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Someone963852: Ha. In the past three years before this I'd made 12 edits to 6 articles. I just popped back in to add something to Xennials and got confronted with a first class abusive personality. Don't poke the bear, honey. Kolya Butternut (talk) 04:06, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The user accused me of being a sock of another editor when I first edited the Millennials article last year just because they had opposing views. That is the type of personality that new editors have to deal with when they try to edit these generation-related articles. At least we're bringing it to the admin's attention now. Someone963852 (talk) 04:22, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

With that personality I could understand why they'd expect to have enemies. There seems to be a cult of Strauss-Howe Kolya Butternut (talk) 05:04, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Someone963852: do you understand what Joe Job could be referring to in this context? Kolya Butternut (talk) 15:26, 26 February 2019 (UTC) Ok, so it's just like False Flag. That's silly. Kolya Butternut (talk) 15:38, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it's silly. The user is grasping at straws trying to find every way to get us reported. Someone963852 (talk) 13:37, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have read your email, and looked at some of the things you mention. I'll try to tell you what I think when I have more time than now. It's fairly complicated, and a quick answer would be misleading. If I haven't got back to you within a couple of days please feel welcome to remind me. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:52, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

When I run the search, the difference between 28k and 19k results is whether "The" is included in the phrase. FYI, I've found that sometimes editors will object very strongly about other editors editing their talk page comments if it's not for one of the reasons listed in WP:TPO.

Thanks! I didn't realize what I was doing. Kolya Butternut (talk) 07:14, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. If we had the right pictures, I would support going with pictures of dancing or laughing. I think the most efficient way forward would be to find a matching set, or possibly a few matching sets, and then launch an RfC for both articles, so it would only take one round of discussion to settle the issue finally (rather than ping-ponging back and forth). Unfortunately I don't have a lot of time to look right now. Last time, I searched Google images using filters to find public-domain images, then imported them to Commons so I could post them here. I'm happy to look at any pictures you find if you want a second opinion. If you want to take this on, you might create a new page in your userspace to be an image gallery (like User:Kolya Butternut/Man and Woman gallery or something), and after you've collected some options, drop a link at Talk:Man and Talk:Woman, so editors who are interested can watchlist your gallery page and use that talk page for discussion, and then narrow the choices down to some "finalists" for an RfC. Let me know if you need any help with anything. Leviv ich 04:06, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Levivich, thanks, those are good ideas. It took me forever to find those two photos, so it is an intimidating project! Kolya Butternut (talk) 04:33, 3 March 2019 (UTC

Levivich, of course I'm not into photos of work, but I thought it would be easier to look for a match for the existing Woman image for now. I didn't see an option for "public domain", so these won't stay up long. If they really are public domain there are more where they came from. Not sure about the colors. Man and Woman gallery. What do you think? If they're ok I can add a link to the talk page. Kolya Butternut (talk) 01:04, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I like the first two; the third one with the rickshaw (if that's the right word) I like less, as it seems too busy. My advice would be to collect more than 3 examples before bringing other editors' attention to it. If they come and they don't like any of them, they'll leave and not come back (so you won't get discussion, and you won't get consensus). You want every editor to see at least two that they'll like, so it gives them something to think about. I would shoot for 5–10 pictures, and include variety (the three you have now are already good in the variety department). Yes, it takes a long time!

By the way, I added {cc-zero} templates and put the pictures in categories (Men). You can see my edits on the pictures themselves. If you don't add a license template and categories to new pictures, the bots will come and yell at you :-) (as you can see below). Leviv ich 01:41, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is that right? I noticed that my images are the only ones in the "Men" and "Women" categories. Kolya Butternut (talk) 02:03, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, no, that's not right! Sorry, and good catch. I didn't realize these files were uploaded to Wikipedia, I thought they were uploaded to Commons. I think it's only Commons that requires you to categorize a file; I don't think that's required on WP. I removed the categories on those three files. Sorry for the screw up! Leviv ich 02:30, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, thanks for fixing it. Does it make a difference whether they're on Wikipedia or Commons? Kolya Butternut (talk) 02:33, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so, not for public domain (unlike fair use, which can only be uploaded to WP). The reason I like Commons is because of the Flickr2Commons and URL2Commons tools, which makes it easy to put in a URL of a picture and import it to Commons (without having to download/upload). I'm not aware of a similar tool for WP. Leviv ich 02:56, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah... I just remembered the other reason I like to upload to Commons instead of Wikipedia :-) Aside from the import tools, they have more specific license templates. And, if there's a deletion issue, for my part I'd rather the editors there decide instead of getting involved in an XfD here (I get involved in enough of those as it is). I haven't uploaded a ton of photos, but I have imported from Pexels to Commons before without a problem (the current lead image at Woman is a Pexels import, for example). I moved the two Pexels photos in your gallery to commons, updated the links, and tagged the WP versions for speedy deletion as duplicates of the Commons version, and I posted at the FfD that I had done so, so that should take care of the issue, and my recommendation would be to send Pexels photos to Commons in the future since they seem to have a specific license template for it. Leviv ich 15:41, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Levivich, how did you find the date for the pexel images? In the last four photos I added to the Man and Woman gallery I used a somewhat random date. Kolya Butternut (talk) 23:54, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I think our good friends at Pexels have changed their website. I just looked and it looks like a different layout than what I remember from just a month or so ago. I may be going crazy. You have to click on the "(i)nfo" button, and some pictures have a date there [4] (but note no year, although it had a year when I looked at it last, about a month ago) v. [5] (no date). The created date is also on the metadata from the file itself. Scroll down the bottom here and you'll see it. I remember (because of the deletion kerfuffle) that the date on the Pexels website (at the time, labeled "photographed on") matched the "created" metadata date on the file itself (as reported by Commons). I noticed your uploads don't have metadata. I assume that's a function of transferring the images from the Pexels website using URL2Commons (link at commons:User:Levivich) as opposed to downloading from Pexels and then uploading using Upload Wizard. Hope this helps (but probably not, sorry). Pexels is a pain! PS: I like the pictures, good choices. I don't know if you noticed, but someone has started the lead image conversation up again at Talk:Woman. This may be your chance :-D Leviv ich 00:11, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I downloaded those photos and then uploaded them. Are you saying it's possible if I had used URL2Commons the metadata may have been retained? I'm glad you liked them. It took me FOREVER to figure out what I wanted and to find something that matched. I decided I liked the idea of photos of humans just "being", doing nothing, while sitting in front of their homes. Not all humans live in cities, but we all pretty much live in human-built dwellings. He's not in front of a dwelling, but I love the picture of the man on the stairs. I uploaded the rest of my photos just now after seeing that someone had commented on the Woman talk page. Kolya Butternut (talk) 00:33, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure about the metadata, I just noticed that the metadata is shown at the pexels website for the pics you uploaded by not at the commons website. The upload method shouldn't make a difference, but it's the only difference I see between the files that have metadata at both websites and the ones that don't. And yeah, it takes forever–I recently did it at Talk:Fish as food#More fish–but I'm coming around to what you're saying. The thing is, I think prominent accessories like mobile phones, headphones, sunglasses–particularly those that are worn on the head–distract from the person. Maybe I'm brainwashed from advertisements, but when I see a photo of someone wearing sunglasses or a baseball hat or using a phone, I think of it as an advertisement for that product. I like your criteria of average looks, average age, average skin tone, doing nothing (heh), even in front of an average habitation (their house)... I would add a full-body shot, eyes open/visible, face not covered, preferably not holding anything, clothed (only cuz I think that's come up before, heh).. I would prefer nothing on the head (hatless) to show human hair... So this is an impossible wishlist I've mused here, and sacrifices will have to be made. I'm curious to see where the discussion goes. Leviv ich 01:20, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I've also been thinking about the collage idea. Looking at your gallery, I notice how much better the gallery does at depicting what a "person" is than any one of those pictures could alone. Diversity is such an essential part of the human race, I feel like one of the key things about man and woman is that they come in many varieties. A collage–or maybe a picture of a group of people–would convey that in a way that no picture of an individual could. On the other hand, there's the argument that it's Woman, not Women. Leviv ich 01:23, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like the photo where he's looking down at his phone, but I do like the photo where he's looking up. I'm not personally distracted by his phone/headphones/hat; I think it shows him interacting with everyday technology in a way that makes sense to me, maybe like how you had described the "woman mechanic" photo. The sunglasses are problematic IMO, but I'm also considering the model's privacy. That photo looks too posed to me anyway. I like the criteria you discuss. I'm not against prominent accessories like eyeglasses, hats, and held objects, but I agree they can potentially be distracting, and it would be better if hats don't completely conceal the hair or the shape of the head. I agree clothed is best to show humans in their normal state, but I do want a sense of the whole body, so I think it is good to see as much skin as possible. I'm not that familiar with the discussion regarding collages. I'm not even sure why Man and Woman exist as separate articles; I guess I haven't read them. I don't know if a man is a human male, or if it's more about gender, or if both concepts are included. Kolya Butternut (talk) 02:22, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of hair, I would prefer to see a man with male-pattern hair loss. [6] You might be distracted by the Calvin Klein logo! I don't like the sense of motion though. Kolya Butternut (talk) 02:42, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I see a man with male-pattern hair loss every time I look in the mirror :-P But I think there would be/has been opposition logos. Man and Woman seem to be about the biology, psychology and sociology of it. I found the navboxes at the bottom of the articles to be helpful in figuring out the structure of the topic area and related articles. Re: collages, I don't know if you've seen Girl and Boy. I can't help but feel that the Girl collage does a better job of conveying what a "girl" is than the Boy lead image, although that is quite a Tom Sawyer-looking kid. Leviv ich 04:17, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

LOL that is a silly picture for boy. What about a vertical "collage", with the first image as the actual lead? Kolya Butternut (talk) 04:37, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

When you say vertical, do you mean three images stacked on top of each other, or three tall/skinny images next to each other? Either might work (and might be better than a 3x3 or 4x4 grid arrangement), but I'm thinking the latter would allow for three full-body images side-by-side in roughly the same space as a single image with a typical 4:3 or 2:3 aspect ratio. I personally think either would be fine. Leviv ich 04:43, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I meant images stacked on top of each other, not necessarily three. That would interfere with the infobox though... Kolya Butternut (talk) 04:51, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Levivich, I changed the captions of the photos for easy selection and added the crop of my favorite. The gallery has been sitting around a while, do you think it's time to pull the trigger on an RfC? Kolya Butternut (talk) 21:24, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, no time like the present! The captions help. Thanks for putting this together. Leviv ich 22:05, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Levivich ugh, I didn't notice your comments above where you suggested leaving links to my gallery on each page and doing an RfC after the choices are narrowed down...I never did that. Kolya Butternut (talk) 22:42, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's not too late? Leviv ich 02:39, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Levivich, done.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 09:25, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Levivich, I think the photo I added of the woman in striped pants is comparable to the Man image, do you think we're ready for an RfC with a couple of these finalists? Talk:Woman/sandbox Kolya Butternut (talk) 17:37, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi KB! I cleared my watchlist months ago and never re-added the gender-related pages, so I never saw yours newest four candidates until now. I like striped pants! I'd vote for that one. I support an RfC; I'm not sure what the best format is. Previously I'd thought proposing one image for an up/down vote was the way to go, and that worked on one page but didn't work on another. I'm not sure another one-image-proposal, or a gallery-proposal, or something else, is best. I'd also be concerned that the extreme length (and acrimony) of Talk:Woman right now might impede an RfC. You might want to archive some threads before starting a new RfC thread (but on the other hand, some editors might not want to archive certain discussions). Anyway you know what a minefield this is :-) Good luck! :-D – Levivich 20:47, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unspecified source/license for File:Adult-artisan-equipment.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Adult-artisan-equipment.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time after the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|CC-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by MifterBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: Once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. --MifterBot ^{(Talk • Contribs • Owner)} 00:45, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unspecified source/license for File:Maracaibo Venezuelan Man.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Maracaibo Venezuelan Man.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time after the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|CC-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by MifterBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: Once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. --MifterBot ^{(Talk • Contribs • Owner)} 01:00, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unspecified source/license for File:Adult-art-artisan.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Adult-art-artisan.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time after the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|CC-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by MifterBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: Once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. --MifterBot ^{(Talk • Contribs • Owner)} 01:00, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on File:Adult-art-artisan.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the file appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use it — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Whpq (talk) 08:33, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Adult-art-artisan.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Whpq (talk) 08:49, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Adult-art-artisan.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 23:55, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add defamatory content to Wikipedia, as you did to Candace Owens, especially if it involves living persons. Thank you. wumbolo ^^^ 22:48, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's not defamatory; I'm referencing reliable sources which state facts, including the fact that the shooter named her as an influence. I didn't state that Owens WAS an influence, just that he claimed she was. --Kolya Butternut (talk) 22:57, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is still defamatory. Please read WP:BLPBALANCE, WP:BLPSOURCES and WP:NOTGOSSIP. wumbolo ^^^ 23:01, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The definition of "defamatory" is rather specific. I've read those articles and I don't know what you think I should see. The information I wrote is balanced, verifiable and reliably sourced. It's not "gossip". Can you be more specific about your objections? --Kolya Butternut (talk) 23:08, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Or, perhaps read defamatory. That edit was not defamatory and a level 2 warning template was not called for. Leviv ich 23:16, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would also like to point out that I did not add this information to the lead; after it was added to the lead I edited the lead to be more neutral. --Kolya Butternut (talk) 23:21, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you guys don't know what defamation is, please stay out of biographical articles. Thanks. wumbolo ^^^ 08:58, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Defamation is defined as "the act of communicating false statements about a person that injure the reputation of that person".[7] Note the word false. Please stop writing on my talk page. Kolya Butternut (talk) 09:41, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Candace Owens shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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 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 if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page 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 three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
Okay, this is my last message. wumbolo ^^^ 10:33, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You are taking the quote out of context. You reverted edits which were discussed on the talk page. Please participate there instead of edit warring. Kolya Butternut (talk) 10:51, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The editor who placed this template was, themselves, edit warring: three reverts on April 9 (diff, diff, diff), three on April 10 (diff, diff, diff), two so far today (diff, diff), all with multiple editors, on a 1RR page. Leviv ich 16:12, 11 April 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.

Template:Z33

Hi, I just wanted to let you know that I cleaned up the formatting of your poll here: Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#The_Atlantic_quote. I didn't change any content; I just made the quotes more readable and assigned them A and B. I apologise if this was rude of me. 84percent (talk) 05:09, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe we should move the poll to the talk page? What do you think? 84percent (talk) 03:35, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure you've read the comments on Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#The_Atlantic_quote where I explicitly expressed what I think:

Wrong venue. This should be moved to the article's talk page. wumbolo ^^^ 08:49, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Seeking input from uninvolved editors. This was already discussed at the talk page and went nowhere. --Kolya Butternut (talk) 12:03, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

And I know that you have read and commented on User:Levivich's talk page where the plan which I am clearly following was discussed. So, as stated above, I want the poll to remain where it is. As discussed, "If more editors chime in and opinion is divided, then it's probably time for an WP:RfC." In isolation your comments appear to be in good faith, but your documented overall pattern of edits and comments suggest Civl POV Pushing. Please stop. --Kolya Butternut (talk) 05:01, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The super-simple A/B poll wasn't attempted at the talk page, which is what I'm suggesting. Look, I honestly have no bad intentions or hidden agenda here; I don't understand why you give me that attitude. Yes, we clearly have disagreements, but we share the same goal, and I don't see a good reason to dislike each other. I genuinely want that third pair of eyes I've been requesting for the past few days; hopefully it will put the issue to rest. Anyway, I'm happy to keep it on the noticeboard, however if you change your mind, I'm also happy to contribute to a new poll on the talk page as wumbolo suggested. I don't know what an WP:RfC is in this context, but will Google it tomorrow (despite my addiction, I've only been an editor for a week or so and I research policy as I go). Also, I apologise for the Owens Whisperer comment; that was out of line. Have a nice day or night & sorry for my late-night rambling. 84percent (talk) 11:02, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You're free to start your own poll on the talk page but I've made clear I'm seeking the input of editors who are uninvolved with the Candace Owens article, so please do not interfere. If you truly were acting in good faith you would be able to understand my interpretation of your behavior. You're mischaracterizing our conflict as "simple disagreements". I have tried to have honest discussions with you about content but I believe you have not been willing to be honest, so I am not interested in engaging with you here, where I believe you are continuing to be superficially civil to obscure your misconduct. Your passive statements about "wanting a third pair of eyes" are unconvincing. The "third pair of eyes" you requested told you to stop WP:CRYBLP and removing reliable and relevantly sourced stuff. User wumbolo has been even more disruptive than you, but they clearly agree with you about removing well sourced content to push their POV, so start a poll with them if you want. You're highly familiar with WP policy; playing dumb is unconvincing. I've made my feelings about you clear, so from now on please limit our discussions to content on the talk page, but if you continue bad faith discussions I will formally warn you on your talk page and we can take up discussion there. Until then, stop wasting my time. Kolya Butternut (talk) 11:57, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing in my note was in bad faith or dishonest. I'm happy to respect your wish and leave your talk page alone. I'm at a loss for how to convince you that I'm authentic (and I realise it's not necessary). I hope your weekend is pleasant and relaxing; I will leave you to enjoy it, and not return to this page unless requested. 🚂 84percent (talk) 12:43, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is a courtesy notice that the case request for SashiRolls has been declined by the Arbitration Committee. For more information on why the case was declined, please see the link above. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 18:30, 2 May 2019 (UTC).[reply]

I notice you can't seem to drop the stick. Please stop the childish games. This [8] is known as "badgering". It is interesting how you've followed me to both Tulsi Gabbard and to Julian Assange, and frankly how you've worked on virtually no pages other than pages I did (if I'm reading this interaction timeline correctly). A vast majority of your wiki editing since late April does seem to have been focused on pages I've edited. If you'd like to explain that below, be my guest.🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 11:53, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ask a question, get an answer sHOuTEd aT YoU In AlL-cApS via edit-summary in a mainspace place. lol. smh. Incidentally, that RfC could be closed no consensus now or later, it doesn't really matter.🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 13:43, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop casting aspersions and assuming bad faith. I used caps because italics are not possible in edit summaries, and I made the comment in the edit summary because I did not have access to a computer at the time and it was much easier to simply revert and comment there. I did feel a firm statement was necessary to end the repeated interference with my comments so that we could discuss the comments here to allow me to make changes myself, if appropriate.

Please strike your accusations from my talk page. My understanding is that it was inappropriate for you to hide my comments, per WP:Talk page guidelines#Editing others' comments, If a discussion goes off-topic (per the above subsection § How to use article talk pages), editors may hide it using the templates {{Collapse top}} and {{Collapse bottom}} or similar templates—these templates should not be used by involved parties to end a discussion over the objections of other editors. My comments were not off-topic, and I object to the collapse. If there is a policy which justifies your collapse of my comments please let me know.

Please consider obvious explanations before accusing me of following you. I went from commenting on WikiLeaks to commenting on Julian Assange to commenting on a discussion on Tulsi Gabbard about Russian interference. If you have a specific concern you can let me know, but I would suggest not focusing on yourself. I am satisfied with the sanction you have received due to your repeated assumptions of bad faith and personal attacks, but you are continuing that behavior here. Please stop.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 14:37, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SashiRolls, please do not falsely accuse me of violating WP:NPA and WP:Aspersions as you did in this edit summary.  I accurately stated that you were being dishonest when you stated:

I was blocked for calling an edit dishonest, which is apparently not allowed even if what you call "dishonest" really was demonstrably so. Oh well, not the first time I've been blocked for pointing out an inconvenient truth.

 Let's leave it at that. Kolya Butternut (talk) 18:24, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The clear evidence is here. If you have evidence for your "accurate" assessment, feel free add it below; otherwise you know what you can do...🌿   SashiRolls ^{t ·   c} 18:48, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Awilley, as you were the blocking administrator, do you want to respond to this?  Kolya Butternut (talk) 18:59, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, sorry, I've been out of town and offline and have some catching up to do. I didn't even realize there was a case. ~Awilley (talk) 19:06, 12 June 2019 (UTC) Oh. Ignore the comment about the case. The context here disoriented me. ~Awilley (talk) 19:15, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SashiRolls, I wish I had remembered to ask you this before arguing again, but are you able to understand 16th prose? I saw that you have studied Rabelais. I was researching the etymology of the word thornback in the sense of old-maids, and I found that "The word thornbacks was used to refer to old maids in Peter Anthony Motteux's 1694 English translation of François Rabelais' 16th century novels Gargantua and Pantagruel." I'm not sure if the meaning is related, but the word thornbacks is also used in Nashe's Lenten Stuff. Are you able to understand the use of thornbacks in Lenten Stuff? Kolya Butternut (talk) 01:05, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The action is entered, the complaint of her wintered brows presented, of a violent rape of his heart she is indicted and convinced. The circumstance that follows you may imagine or suppose, or, without supposing or imagining, I will tell you; the nut was cracked, the strife discussed, and the centre of her heart laid open, and to this wild of sorrows and excruciament she was confined, either to be held a flat thornback or sharp-pricking dog-fish to the weal public, or seal herself close to his sealskinned rivelled lips, and suffer herself as a spirit to be conjured into the hellish circle of his embraces.

Am I correct that you are asking me for exegesis of the preceding text? o.O Why?

Regarding your question about Rabelais, I looked into it. Motteux uses the word thornback three times in his translation of Rabelais' 5 books. There is no direct textual justification in Rabelais in any of three cases for the use of the English word "thornback." In the list of fish, one does find both "raie" and "vieille" in the list of foods offered to the gods in Book IV Chap. 60. If you wanted to look into it further, the episode of the cooks being stuffed into a sow (a weird gastronomic transcription of the Trojan horse) in Book IV Chapter 40 is discussed in Mireille Huchon, "Variations sur l'imposition du nom" (where the wordplay is between Troy (troie) and sow (truie)). The story of the transmogrification of young & old nuns into (admin- ?)birds in the 5th book (Chapter 4: Ringing Island) likewise contains no trace of the specific term you are looking for. Rabelais is very difficult to translate and Motteux probably used all the colorful local language at hand to do so.

Of course, the word "spine" in English comes from the Old French word for "thorn" (épine), but that isn't what you asked me. ^^ 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 07:13, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is the text I was trying to understand from Lenten Stuff. Although I don't know if it makes sense out of the context of the preceding text; I thought it might be a very extended metaphor. Like I said I was curious if the meaning was related to spinster. I thought it meant that the character was faced with the choice of being married to an undesirable man or being a spinster. If so, that would make it the first known occurrence of thornback with that meaning. The Oxford English Dictionary (1888) only says that it was used figuratively to opprobriously refer to a person. Kolya Butternut (talk) 08:59, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And this is where the spinster sense is found in Motteux's translation of Rabelais: [9]. Kolya Butternut (talk) 09:04, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this Kolya. I've been working on this recently again, and reading about what Screech called "The Rabelaisian Marriage" and re-reading Bauschatz' study of the relationship between Rabelais & Queen Margot, I keep coming back to this comment, which made me realize that Motteux wasn't mentioned in the Rabelais entry! (fixed, thanks. you really might find that Bauschatz paper interesting [10]). I checked the dates, it looks like Motteux was first credited in 1708, but that his reworking of the earlier translation become the standard well into the 20th century. (I bet I'll pop back here when I get to Quaresmeprenant, a guzzler of dried peas, in Book IV. ^^) -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 00:10, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. All that stuff is over my head. I would assume those books are the sources for many words, just like Shakespeare's works. Otherwise it's a strange coincidence that you happened to be an expert in a subject that I randomly came across. It's too bad you got banned from politics just as we were on the same side of an argument. Kolya Butternut (talk) 00:52, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Re this comment, "dishonest, prejudiced, and controlling" is a personal attack. Please read WP:NPA and refrain from insulting other editors. - SchroCat (talk) 13:44, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SchroCat, this is not meant to be an attack, this describes my experience with BL's behavior.  I will try again with diffs and explain in terms of my own feelings how I feel controlled, lied to, and prejudged.  It is difficult because I am experiencing those same things when I try to open a dialogue on her talk page regardless of what I write.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 15:32, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's just compounding your attack: knock it off. Use the talk page of the article only, and don't discuss the other editor or your feelings: only focus on the article content you are discussing and imagine you are writing to a pencil, not someone you have a beef with. - SchroCat (talk) 15:41, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SchroCat, I have a personal dispute unrelated to content.  An editor's talk page is the place to discuss that.  How would you suggest I discuss that behavior on her talk page?  Kolya Butternut (talk) 15:52, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No you don’t. You have a disagreement over content. Sort out the content issue and stop personalising things. - SchroCat (talk) 16:35, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SchroCat, I feel that BL is being uncivil. You are free to disagree with me about her behavior, but that is the nature of my dispute with her which is unrelated to content. Kolya Butternut (talk) 17:01, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is this on the Millennials article? - SchroCat (talk) 17:48, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You're not an administrator, what does it matter?  Kolya Butternut (talk) 17:55, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is this on the Millennials talk page? - SchroCat (talk) 17:58, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You're not the person I need to be showing diffs to, and if you're going to make baseless claims about me and what disputes I do or do not have you should be telling me what you're looking at.  What is your connection here?  Why are you bothering me?  Kolya Butternut (talk) 18:09, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like you have a history of defending BL and emailing her.  Stay off my talk page Gavin.   Kolya Butternut (talk) 18:23, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take it that it is that page then. BL hasn't insulted you, ordered you around or anything of the sort. She made no personal attacks against you, but you have made several unwarranted personal attacks against her. If you really, really think she has, then feel free to open a report at WP:ANI to see if anyone agrees with you. Don't worry, I won't post here again. - SchroCat (talk) 18:38, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your examples are not the only kinds of incivility.  Her incivility is superficially civil.  You have repeatedly shown your bias.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 19:02, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And, her talk page is the place to begin, not ANI.  Her denial that i have a personal dispute with her is precisely the kind of incivility that I speak of.  It's a falsehood, it's based on assumptions about me, and when she prevents me from having a dialogue she is being controlling.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 19:04, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is BL's behavior on her talk page that I am speaking of where she reverts and mischaracterizes my comments: [11], [12] I would ask you to be charitable and look for the truth in my statements. Kolya Butternut (talk) 19:20, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding this, you clearly only showed up at this article you had never showed up at before because I was there. Here's a piece of advice: Take my talk page off your watchlist and keep me out of your thoughts. If I see anymore hounding from you, you will be taken to ANI and swiftly dealt with, just like all of my other stalkers. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:06, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Flyer22 Reborn, this sounds like a personal attack against me more than it sounds like hounding. Just because I saw Vulva (provocatively) discussed on your talk page does not mean I edited it to follow you. I have my own motivations that have nothing to do with you; these do not meet the criteria of hounding. If you edit my talk page again, please be civil and assume good faith. Kolya Butternut (talk) 23:53, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Our disagreements started at the Woman talk page, over images. We can see that here. Our discussion there became very heated and ended with your "05:55, 10 May 2019 (UTC)" posts. Those comments make it very clear how you feel about me. My "05:23, 10 May 2019 (UTC)" comment, where I stated, in part, that "I will be looking to ignore you as much as possible from here on out.", is very clear how I feel about you. Our disagreements on images then continued here at Talk:African Americans. And from there to here at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Images. You also weighed in on this baseless, recent ANI thread about me, which unsurprisingly went nowhere. Your comments there make it very clear how you feel about me.

In that ANI thread, you brought up a significantly old comment by me that one of my stalkers/harassers (Hillbillyholiday) referenced in a Wikipediocracy thread -- which is full of misunderstandings, inaccuracies, including lies by Hillbillyholiday -- when calling me a psychopath. For example, I'm supposedly under-qualified? Yes, I started out editing soap opera articles, as Hillbillyholiday notes, but many Wikipedians started out editing Wikipedia as a hobby, not being drawn to their professions. And I edit sexual topic articles more than medical articles (although the articles are sometimes both), and my edits are always on-point. With regard to medical topics, Doc James and I hardly disagree. And WP:Med editors usually support my changes. So if there is actually some WP:Med editor concerned about my edits, as claimed by Hillbillyholiday, I would have heard about it by now. And, yes, my brother typed like me in the past when editing as IPs and may still occasionally do so. But one reason for that is that he learned Wikipedia's rules and protocols by watching me. He also has autism, and his autism compels him to copy people. He does still occasionally use my IP. This is because he and my other siblings often visit me during the week or weekend to help take care of me in light of health issues. But you obviously don't care about facts. You just want to believe what you want to believe. At first, as seen in that ANI thread, I figured that you had simply dug up the comment yourself. But the timing is too coincidental. You got that comment from that Wikipediocracy thread; you can deny this as much as you want to; I won't believe it. Do tell Hillbillyholiday I said hi if, taking a break from his disgruntled, stalkerish behavior, he doesn't see this post on his own. I will also go ahead and say that when I made that comment all those years ago, I was trying to save face. Here in the latest RfC at the African Americans talk page, I called you out on being someone who loves pulling up old quotes of mine and searching for or discussing me off Wikipedia, and referring to me even after I've been clear that you should not. You did not deny this.

After seeing this post on my talk page, you decided to show up to the Vulva article and make this edit. It (surprise, surprise) has to do with images. Above, you admit to having seen the post on my talk page. You know that we don't get along, and yet you somehow thought it was a good idea to show up to an article after it was posted about on my talk page. You shouldn't even be watching my talk page. You seem to think that, given our history, visiting an article after it's been posted about on my talk page is a good thing. To say that the edit has nothing to do with me, knowing our disputes over images and my feelings on MOS:NOETHNICGALLERIES, is disingenuous. And to top it off, you went to make this same edit to the Labia article (another article that I obviously watch). I'm not watching your talk page. I'm not some problematic editor that good editors need to keep an eye on. So how does it make sense for you to watch my talk page unless it's to cause me distress by inserting yourself into discussions I may be involved in, which falls under WP:HOUNDING? This has been deemed WP:HOUNDING countless times, including cases involving others who have hounded me. In these cases, the editors were asked to take my talk page of their watchlists. It was made very clear to them that they should not show up to an article just because I'm there or because they saw it posted about on my talk page. So you thinking that you are exempt when it comes to what WP:Hounding entails makes not a bit of sense to me. I don't want you following me. I don't want you coming to an article because you know I significantly edit it or am somewhat involved with it. I don't want you coming to an article because you saw it posted about on my talk page. And per WP:HOUND, I'm allowed to state/request this. You can consider this section on your talk page a warning. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:22, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kolya Butternut, please allow me to give you some advice for your own good. Please refrain from any behavior whatsoever that might reasonably be construed as hounding Flyer22 Reborn. Thank you very much. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:52, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming good faith, Flyer believes I am following the editor to cause distress. My feeling however is that the editor is twisting things around to make it look like I am the abusive editor rather than the other way around, either to intimidate me off of articles where I have a dissenting opinion, to punish me, or both. After previously arguing with this editor, things got personal and disrespectful, and we failed to establish mutual understanding. It is now clear to me that the focus should remain on content when outside of noticeboards.

I have an interest in lead images that is unrelated to the editor. I have put most of my image work into the lead image at Woman

I don't know anything about Hillbillyholiday or their socks, and I have not participated at Wikipediocracy or any of this backstory. During our Talk:Woman argument I did feel trolled by Flyer, and that may have been when I looked to see if others felt the same way and found the discussion[13] [14] where Flyer's trolling is discussed. It's possible this behavior has improved over time, but I will try to keep discussion about content and avoid taking any bait thrown my way.

I was understandably drawn to the Vulva article after reading the comment "OMG. All those shaved pussies in the article! Oy!" [15]. Considering Flyer's focus on me I think it makes to sense to watch the editor's talk page.

I repeat that I have my own interest in lead images relating to humans and sexuality and MOS, and unfortunately we share these interests. Kolya Butternut (talk) 02:11, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I advise you to take that editor's talk page off your watchlist. That would be to your benefit, in my opinion, since you are clearly displaying some hounding tendencies. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:42, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you assume bad faith?  Flyer is taking things personally, making accusations against me every time I show up at articles that are all connected to the same image issues, and being pinged to ANI.  These additional accusations that I have referenced Flyer's trolling behavior because of some connection to an editor I do not know shows the editor is making connections that do not exist. Flyer may genuinely believe the things they say, but they are playing games that they do not deny, [16] possibly to create a narrative to give me an interaction ban so that my opinions are kept off articles they edit. The common pattern here is making everything about them and not recognizing my own motivations. I have tried to stop taking the bait but they keep making the same accusations against me. Their discussion on their talk page was related to the same issue of images of groups of humans that I have been editing.  This style problem is obvious at Labia. What brings you to my talk page?  Kolya Butternut (talk) 09:39, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note that Flyer is addressing me through their talk page summaries[17] while leaving no evidence of engaging on my talk page.  It sounds like there's a long pattern of people being triggered into following them and possibly encountering the same games I have.  I would suggest you look at why this keeps happening with this editor, but I am clearly being intimidated away from drawing attention to these patterns, so that is the work of an administrator.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 10:10, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have given you some suggestions in the hope of preventing an escalation of hostility between the two of you. It is up to you to decide whether to follow my recommendations or not. Please note that "bad faith" is not always required for editors to fall into a confrontational frame of mind, but that the outcome may end up being bad. I am encouraging you to avoid that. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:41, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am asking why you believe this: "you are clearly displaying some hounding tendencies", and I am asking how you arrived at my talk page. "The important component of hounding is disruption to another user's own enjoyment of editing, or disruption to the project generally, for no constructive reason.". My edits which overlap Flyer's are done for purely constructive reasons.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 20:23, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think that this very thread is evidence of hounding tendencies and I showed up here on your talk page because I am an administrator and it is part of my job to try to defuse tensions between two otherwise productive editors. I have over 16,000 pages on my watchlist which I scan frequently and I have had many interactions with the other editor over the years. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:35, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Being accused of hounding is not evidence of hounding, especially in this context where there is evidence of trolling, paranoia, and a random story about an autistic brother who copies them. Kolya Butternut (talk) 19:59, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what you mean by "random", but if you can't see that what you wrote there is likely to be seen as offensive then it is no wonder that you do things which others see as hounding but you are unable to see why. It was also totally unnecessary, as it adds no relevant information to what you were saying. I am going to repeat Cullen's "advice for your own good" but more emphatically. Keep clear of Flyer22 Reborn, and refrain from any behavior whatsoever that might reasonably be construed as hounding her, whether you personally intend it that way or not. If you don't take that advice then you are likely to be blocked from editing before long. JBW (talk) Formerly known as JamesBWatson 14:42, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What does the brother story have to do with anything that is going on here? I am being warned for an "unhelpful approach" to false accusations of not just hounding but of some connection to past history I have nothing to do with. I have strongly disagreed with the lead image at Woman, part of the debate is over style issues where Flyer has been a dominant voice, in fact she started the relevant RfC [18]. She has participated in all of the articles that have been mentioned in these style discussions. And more articles like Labia have a lead image with a collage of 36 labias. It looks like style from Wikipedia ten years ago that has never been updated. I felt like I experienced trolling from her, maybe as a gatekeeping strategy, but I didn't handle it well or warn her until I validated for myself that that's really what was happening by finding an old discussion. I've tried to keep things really impersonal with her now for a while, but these image issues are still here. Kolya Butternut (talk) 23:54, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

When one person sees it as their mission to save the encyclopedia, that person might not be seeing the big picture. You raised the issue and other editors have commented. Raking up other stuff and pursuing the mission will not end well. Johnuniq (talk) 00:45, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is more nuance here. I'm raising issues, other editors have commented, and we're moving closer to consensuses on various related style issues. A discussion hasn't begun at WP:Labia, which is in my opinion the worst lead image I've found. I still haven't started an RfC for the lead image at WP:Woman, where the current lead image seems less like a consensus choice and more just the status quo we're left with. Kolya Butternut (talk) 01:10, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Would a two-way no-fault IBAN be a way to deal with this? --Tryptofish (talk) 23:06, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I feel intimidated and manipulated, but as a newer editor an IBAN would really only punish me.  What I find distressing is that others don't see what seems obvious to me.  I can't really defend myself against accusations [19] on article talk pages without falling into a trap.  I can stay civil and avoid confrontation, but I don't think I should be forced off the WP:Harassment talk page.  I still find the language unclear, and I don't understand why it's being edited before the upcoming RfC, but that's where we are.  I appreciate you making the suggestion though.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 23:46, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's ironic that Flyer uses WP:HOUND, a guideline designed to prevent bullying, to instead bully others. Obviously Koyla seeing a single article on someone's talk page that is of interest to her is not what the hounding guideline means when it talks about antagonistically following another user around.

Flyer has also honed in on me, so I'm quite familiar with her WP:WikiBullying. According to one word counting app, Flyer has left about five pages worth of antagonistic posts on my own talk page, and amongst all that nastiness, you'll find that she has also incorrectly accused me of hounding. Luckily, after that spurious accusation, a level-headed admin stepped in and noted that there was no indication that I was doing anything wrong.

On her talk page, Flyer says that There is also a serious harassment issue on Wikipedia; see WP:Harassment. As some very well know, I have been stalked/harassed on Wikipedia a number of times. I don't doubt that there are cases where Flyer has been subject to harassment. It's ironic, and sad, that she can't see that she also engages in it herself. (talk page watcher) WanderingWanda (talk) 01:16, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think she knows exactly what she's doing. Anyone who is bullied in this fashion is going to have a hard time proving their case. It feels like WP:Civil POV pushing, but minus the civililty, and with the addition of projecting false accusations of hounding. Also, I think I may have originally added Flyer's talk page to my watchlist to follow your discussion with her about WP:Genderqueer which I was involved in. In my opinion administrators are being extremely naive in this situation. Kolya Butternut (talk) 01:57, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia photo of Man is a Mallu guy. Twitter seems to have found him out too

Also, Jack Hadley will be on the mainpage on the 9th[20]. Sans image, sadly. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:54, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! That's hilarious. Levivich, we're so famous lol. Kolya Butternut (talk) 15:16, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The image might be deleted. [21] Kolya Butternut (talk) 15:28, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't seem to direct to the correct source? [22] Kolya Butternut (talk) 15:32, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

LOL! I had never heard of Mallu before today, that's pretty great. The deletion thing on Commons seemed to just be vandalism (changing the caption from "man" to "boy", changing the source link, etc.). I reverted it. The Woman image was getting vandalized, too. That's how you know something on Wikipedia got famous :-D – Levivich 16:47, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the Mallu-link, I didn't get that part. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:35, 7 November 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) 00:20, 19 November 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 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.

Template:Z33

Please use the article talk page at Michael Bloomberg to discuss your reasoning before reinstating content that's been challenged by a revert. I see that you have previously received a similar notice about the Discretionary Sanctions in effect on American Politics since 1932 SPECIFICO talk 20:35, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the single revert I made was appropriate  Kolya Butternut (talk) 20:41, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are going to need to respond to the other editors who disagree with you. If you can't accept good faith disagreement, you are not going to be successful editing in areas under Discretionary Sanctions. We already knew you believed your action was correct. Now that others have disagreed and stated why they disagreed, you should respond specifically to the concerns they have identified. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 20:53, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I've been doing on the talk page since you yourself reverted me....  Kolya Butternut (talk) 21:05, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are two page sanctions in use, created by two different Admins. The "consensus required" is the more common, but some articles have the 24-hour BRD. In the case of Biden, the 1RR plus 24-hour BRD was added.   SPECIFICO talk 23:47, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Where are you seeing consensus required sanctions on 2020 presidential candidate pages?  I've already checked three.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 23:52, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's widely used in American Politics related articles in general. An Admin replaced it on many articles at a certain time with the 24-hour BRD sanction, but following talk page discussion, there was little support for that and Admins at their discretion continued to place the "consensus required" sanction. Some of the most contentious articles have worked well under "consensus required" for example [23] [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Foreign_interference_in_the_2020_United_States_elections] [24] and others. The BRD sanction is meaningless. It just slows down edit warring, which is already ensured by the 1RR part, since it allows editors to reinsert random content once per 24 hours without any requirement that the "discussion" be meaningful or responsive. For this reason, my understanding is that most recent page sanctions have used the "consensus requirement" version. SPECIFICO talk 00:08, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You failed to observe the page restrictions at Joe Biden when you reinserted your text that had been reverted shortly before. Please undo and use talk. SPECIFICO talk 03:22, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Huh?  Kolya Butternut (talk) 03:29, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Koyla. If possible, could you vote support/oppose on my RFC for changing the lead in the Millennials article?--CherokeeJack1 (talk) 21:19, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Kolya Butternut, thank you so for your words! I'm deeply honored. I'm afraid I cannot recommend anyone who can translate and I sadly cannot, but I can provide a number of sources, most of them in English. If you start an article in Icelandic, that would be just wonderful. I'll provide you with a list of online links and if you can usethem to expand on the basic outline, that would be great. Just a quick point-some of the older sources are a little out of date. That was a fun article to work on as I had to do a detective work to figure this mystery. It seems that Bram Stoker provided an early draft of Dracula to a Swedish novelist around about 1892, which served as the basis of the Swedish serialization in 1899-1900, which in its turn served as the Icelandic version in 1900-1901. Some of the earlier articles from 2017 were not aware of that-I constantly had to revise the article as I dug deeper into this mystery. A good place to start with Dracula by Bram Stoker The Mystery of The Early Editions by Simone Berni, x. Morrisville: Lulu, 2016. If you click on the link here: [25], it has a bit about the Icelandic version of Powers of Darkness. You may find these reviews from 2017 useful, through some of the information is now inaccurate about the origins of the book: [26], [27], and [28]. According to this link from February 2017 here [29], an Icelandic TV producer named Sigurjon Sighvatsson was planning to do a TV mini-series of Powers of Darkness, through I have not able to find out anything more about it. If you translate just a rough draft and if you make use of the material that I provided here, that would just be great. I always felt that people in Iceland should know more about this-it is that sadly that I do not speak Icelandic and therefore I had to disqualify myself for lack of linguistic competence.:(:(. Thank you so the kind words, which are much appreciated here, and I hope all is well. Cheers! --A.S. Brown (talk) 04:35, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A.S. Brown, you're welcome! I took the easy way out and just added one sentence to the Icelandic article with a source, and I added a link to your article in the English Wikipedia. Now the information is out there for Icelandic readers to see, and an interested Icelandic editor who speaks English will hopefully add to it and make any necessary corrections. Kolya Butternut (talk) 23:43, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Kolya Butternut, thank you! At least we got a start, which is better than nothing. I've been searching the web for Icelandic sources to attach to the article like this one [30], which will hopefully made things easier for those with the sufficient knowledge and time. Thank you for all your help and I hope all is well. Best wishes and cheers!--A.S. Brown (talk) 23:58, 9 April 2020 (UTC) [reply]

Your second revert here [31] [32] violates the 1RR Discretionary Sanction restriction on this article. The fact that you went to BLPN in the interim makes this appear all the worse. It shows that either 1) you understood that there was a BLP issue requiring advice or 2) that you simply were soliciting another editor to do the second revert. Please undo your second revert and, since you've raised the issue at BLPN, await community guidance. Otherwise, this sort of 2rr may get you blocked from editing. You are well aware that the content you keep removing is reliably sourced to Associated Press. Pinging Admin @Wugapodes: who has been helping with this page. SPECIFICO talk 18:57, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

While I have little experience with discretionary sanctions, IMO you continuing to support misleading text in our article is a far more serious issue. Nil Einne (talk) 19:02, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For the sake of completeness, Kolya Butternut, your second edit also violated the 24-hour BRD page restriction on this article. SPECIFICO talk 19:04, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I am declining to take action on this per WP:AGF. Content covered by WP:BLPREMOVE is exempt from the 1RR restriction, and Kolya seems to believe (perhaps wrongly) that this content is removable per BLPREMOVE and exempt. Kolya, I would suggest you go about this differently and seek consensus before removing this information again. As BLPREMOVE mentions, reverts citing it may not always be clear cut and are often controversial. To avoid further conflicts, I suggest you strictly adhere to the 1RR restriction even in cases you believe would be exempt. If the correct course of action is truly obvious, another editor will have the same thought and perform the action. Future violations are likely to result in a topic ban.
  @SPECIFICO: Your report contains aspersions and assumptions of bad faith which are both unnecessary and unsubstantiated. Statements such as either 1) you understood that there was a BLP issue requiring advice or 2) that you simply were soliciting another editor to do the second revert are inappropriate and contribute to making the editing environment unwelcoming. Per your recent logged warning and associated discussion, you should not be commenting on editors this way. Given the way it is phrased, I am also going to assume good faith that you thought user talk pages were not covered by this warning. They are. Continuing to engage in battleground behavior anywhere on the project will likely result in interaction bans or topic bans. — Wug·a·po·des​ 19:44, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wugapodes, why is this not removable per WP:BLPREMOVE?  As I mentioned at BLPN, this information is poorly sourced.  The information is libelous against Tara Reade by falsely suggesting that she was unwilling to name Biden in her police report.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 22:37, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't looked into the sources; I don't have an opinion on whether or not it is exempt, but I do want to prevent you from shooting yourself in the foot. My point is that on a contentious article subject to 1RR restrictions you should be incredibly careful. WP:BLPREMOVE explicitly states that you should not rely on the exemption if you find yourself in an edit war because you want to avoid even the appearance of an edit war. Think of it from the perspective of an uninvolved admin who sees this report. Looking at the article history, it looks like you have repeatedly removed information cited to the Associated Press and New York Times. At first glance, patrolling admins will probably not believe that content sourced to the AP and NYT is exempt from the 1RR restriction per BLPREMOVE, and they may not even look further into what appears to be a clear-cut 1RR violation. I say this having almost sanctioned you for violating the 1RR restriction before I looked into this situation more deeply. Except in completely unambiguous situations, the best thing for you to do is not make two reverts in 24 hours. If material is inaccurate, which is my understanding from your BLPN post, fix it rather than reverting so that it more accurately reflects the sources, but don't take the bait and put yourself into situations that appear like clear cut violations of page restrictions. — Wug·a·po·des​ 01:55, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wugapodes, I'm not sure what else I could have done, besides writing a more thorough edit summary in my reversion, or posting to BLPN and notifying an administrator earlier? This information should have stayed out of the article while we were and continue to discuss whether it is appropriate. The AP is the only source which states Biden was not named in the police report; the rest of the sources accurately state that he was not named in the redacted "public incident report", as I explain in Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Joe_Biden#Allegations_of...sexual_assault. Edit history:

Inaccurate text was boldly added into the article,[33] I removed the text citing no consensus,[34] it was restored citing RS[35] I removed it citing BLPREMOVE with explanation,[36] it was reverted citing BLPREMOVE and nothing else,[37] so I reverted his reversion again citing BLPREMOVE.[38] Kolya Butternut (talk) 02:38, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• NPR confirms Tara Reade did indeed name Biden in the police report: "NPR obtained confirmation of the police report from a law enforcement source. A record of the report names Biden. NPR has filed a Freedom of Information Act request for the full report."[39] Kolya Butternut (talk) 15:43, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• From USA Today: "Earlier this month Reade filed a police report saying she was assaulted in 1993 in order to give herself safety from threats she has received. A record reviewed by AP didn't mention Biden by name. NPR has reported, however, that a record does name Biden and has filed a Freedom of Information Act request for the full report."[40] So, the AP reviewed one record which didn't name Biden, and NPR reviewed another record which did name Biden, therefore, Biden was named to police. Kolya Butternut (talk) 09:04, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

BLPN

You wrote something here about me violating a sanction. What did you mean by that? I am under no BLP or American Politics sanctions. A false unsupported statement is a personal attack and you can be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Previously, you insinuated I had been canvassing here. I am asking you to strike the "sanctions" smear at BLPN and stop making false accusations about me or other editors. @Wugapodes: SPECIFICO talk 23:25, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am obviously discussing the sanctions you are under, not the sanctions you are not under, so if you would like to discuss why you think what I said was inaccurate, please do. If you would like to talk about my concerns about your behavior at WP:Joe Biden, we can do that separately. Please do not accuse me of "insinuating" when I ask a good faith question about a concern. Kolya Butternut (talk) 23:44, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I will add that I felt that what you said was full of false statements which I felt was a personal attack and a violation of your sanctions. If I am wrong that it is not a violation of your sanctions, please help me understand, but regardless, I believe what you said was a personal attack. Kolya Butternut (talk) 23:55, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to ask you again as plainly as I know how. What sanctions were you referring to when you told the RS Noticeboard that I had "violated my sanction?" SPECIFICO talk 01:21, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The sanctions you are under.[41][42] Kolya Butternut (talk) 01:43, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You searched the archives and found those threads. Even though you are a fairly new editor here, you could see that those are not Sanctions. The way you know that is because the Admins always discuss sanctions and in those cases (and evey other of several times I've been called to American Politics AE) the Admins determined that no Sanctions would be placed. When you write "violation of your sanctions" on a site-wide noticeboard, you are making a personal attack, as I told you above. You should have redacted that when I first came here. Now, the thread is closed, so it's moot.

One of the difficulties I have noticed keeps coming up for you is that many editors tell you that you're not listening, that you don't properly understand policies and guidelines that are well documented for your review, and that you appear to be more interested in promoting certain points of view than in collaboration on writing an encyclopedia. Many editors have tried to help you get past this and work within the framework of this community. The choice is up to you. For my part, I've warned you about making personal remarks and aspersions on talk and noticeboard pages. If you believe such concerns are valid, you are always free to take them to Arbcom Enforcement. Otherwise, those comments are out of place, and if you continue to do that you very likely will be blocked. SPECIFICO talk 16:48, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The threads I linked to are the references for your logged warnings found on the Arbitration Enforcement Log: "This is the central log for all sanctions issued to enforce an arbitration decision or as a discretionary sanction."WP:DSLOG I mistakenly thought logged warnings were a type of sanction. If I had realized that I would have used the appropriate jargon. But you have not commented on the intention of my statement at BLPN, which was that when you made false statements and false accusations at BLPN I felt that you were not abiding your logged warnings. But as you said, the thread is closed.

You're now discussing what you say you have observed as my "difficulties" with "other editors". If you're referring to this same BLPN discussion, I felt that it was most editors who were not listening to what advice I was actually asking for, so much of the discussion was us talking past each other. Other than that, I do not know what you're referring to. Please do not suggest that I am "more interested in promoting certain points of view than in collaboration on writing an encyclopedia." Please do not speak for other editors. I feel that this is also a failure to abide your warnings.

I feel that your warnings to me "about making personal remarks and aspersions on talk and noticeboard pages" have been false accusations. Kolya Butternut (talk) 00:07, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You contacted me by email, but showed no reason that the matter would need to be handled privately. If you would like to discuss that matter, please contact me on-wiki, not via backchannels. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:17, 23 April 2020 (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.

Template:Z33

If an edit you make is reverted you must discuss on the talk page and wait 24 hours before reinstating your edit. - MrX 🖋 15:35, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not if I collaboratively address the concerns though, right? Kolya Butternut (talk) 15:37, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Where are you reading that? I'm not aware that that's a provision, but I could be wrong. - MrX 🖋 15:42, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'd have to refresh not memory.  Regardless, I did not restore the portion that he objected to.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 15:50, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kolya Butternut, please self revert. You violated both 1RR and the Consensus Required rule on that page. – bradv🍁 16:39, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bradv, will you address the gatekeeping that is going on? I am doing the best I can within how I understood the policies, but editors are wholesale reverting well-sourced edits over the slightest details which they could have corrected easily themselves. Once the text is reverted the pattern is to stonewall by challenging every detail without collaborating sources or ideas to improve the text. I did not restore any contested text, so I don't understand how I've violated Consensus Required, at least. I am concerned to see that you have commented here, but you have not addressed the editors who inappropriately reverted me, and the editors who have disrupted the talk page. Kolya Butternut (talk) 16:56, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If your edit is clearly an improvement it shouldn't be a problem to get consensus for it on the talk page. But we have these rules for a reason - to prevent the constant edit warring and disruption and force the conversation to happen on the talk page, and not in edit summaries. Are you going to revert yourself or not? – bradv🍁 16:58, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still trying to understand whether my edits violated policy. I feel like you're not hearing my concerns. It absolutely is a problem to achieve consensus at the talk page because of the disruption that is going on. In addition, there is no evidence there is not already consensus for the text, because the disputed text has not been restored. I believe it was the reversions that were against policy, so I don't see how my edits violated policy. For example, if I stole my purse out of the hands of the thief that stole it from me, am I required to give it back to him? I'm not sure if I understand how the policies apply in this case. But, the most important thing to me is that you address the problem not the symptoms, and the first step I ask you to take is to let me know that you understand my concerns. Kolya Butternut (talk) 17:06, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The policy says: " Partial ...reinstatements that reasonably address objections of other editors are preferable to wholesale reverts.", so didn't I meet that requirement. Kolya Butternut (talk) 17:14, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

1RR. Also, me and @Volunteer Marek: are not purse snatchers. SPECIFICO talk 17:38, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see that anywhere in Wikipedia:Edit warring. Bradv's explanation was pretty clear, and it meshes with my own understanding. - MrX 🖋 17:42, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How do you know that you've addressed their objections? They can't revert you, as they're following the 1RR rules, and you haven't raised the matter on the talk page and established consensus for your position. The rules say you may only revert once, and that you must gain consensus on the talk page before restoring contested edits. – bradv🍁 17:43, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bradv, please speak to my concerns rather than only focusing on me. Kolya Butternut (talk) 17:46, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The restrictions in effect on that article are designed to avoid one-against-many situations. They ensure that no one person can control the content, but that editors work together to write it, and that they discuss and compromise whenever possible. In your example of a purse being stolen, this would be analogous to turning the purse over to the police who will decide to whom it belongs. In this metaphor, any other uninvolved editor would serve as the police, reviewing the arguments presented and deciding who is right. Simply put, if someone expresses dislike for one of your edits, you must get an outside opinion before doing it again. And these rules apply to everyone, not just you. – bradv🍁 18:04, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bradv, you addressed this concern AFTER sanctioning me. 😭. I needed a few minutes to process all of this, especially in the context I have described, where a couple of editors are controlling content.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 18:13, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You were asked three times to self-revert, but refused. I applied the block to prevent further edit warring on the article. It is just a partial block though - you are still able to discuss your proposed edit on the article talk page. You are also welcome to seek a second opinion. – bradv🍁 18:19, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bradv, respectfully, I took that as one direct request to revert, the rest I took as a non-rhetorical question and discussion. I did not refuse to revert. And I am concerned you didn't respond to my concerns before sanctioning; you answered my question just minutes after you sanctioned me.  A sanction is a stain on my record, please reconsider.Kolya Butternut (talk) 18:36, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also, as I said, I am writing on my phone while very busy at work and I am distracted and don't have time to address all of this so I would ask that you please consider all of these extenuating circumstances.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 18:51, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To enforce an arbitration decision and for violating 1RR on Joe Biden, you have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week from certain pages (Joe Biden). You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block or other sanctions.

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. 

– bradv🍁 17:46, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

---

Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "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."

Bradv, this is a nonsense block and you know it. I can count at least 3 other editors who violated 1RR at the allegation article in the last day. Do you want me to go ahead and list them here so you can block them too? Please advise me how to proceed. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:08, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mr Ernie, it's a good block. KB violated the restrictions, which we need to enforce restrictions on these sensitive pages. List everyone who violated 1RR. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:22, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Muboshgu, I responded at Brad's page. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:50, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mr Ernie, I just took a look and don't see anything obvious, but perhaps you see something I don't. This probably isn't the place though - you're welcome to report violations on my talk page or on an appropriate noticeboard. – bradv🍁 18:31, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Muboshgu, my concerns, the extenuating circumstances, have not been addressed.  Also, I just had a conflict with you on your talk page, so I would prefer that you not be invoicedinvolved here.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 18:40, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, Muboshgu should not have to pick up the check. SPECIFICO talk 18:53, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SPECIFICO, as you are the editor whose disruptive behavior I believe led to this action, I don't think this is the appropriate forum for mocking. Kolya Butternut (talk) 19:07, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you've previously been told not to cast WP:ASPERSIONS. Unless you are prepared to document, with diffs and policy-based explanation, your claim that I am the editor whose disruptive behavior I believe led to your block, you shold strike that and refrain from similar behavior in the future. Nobody wants to see you get a more severe sanction for continuing with that kind of stuff. SPECIFICO talk 19:51, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the policies are listed under WP:CIVILPOVPUSHING, your reverts of my edits are examples of that, but there are countless examples on the particle talk page.  Please take a break from my talk page.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 20:07, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

By this time, you've got half a dozen Admins watching this page. How many do you think do not see you attacked me and ignored my polite request you retract it. Heck, you could maybe even end this discussion by taking responsibility for it and leaving it unretracted unredacted. If you want me to vanish, don't use your talk page to falsely accuse me of disruptive behavior that made you violate the page sanctions. SPECIFICO talk 20:13, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The behavior you're engaging in right now I believe is an example of bullying behavior.  I don't have access to a keyboard at the moment, I'm using speech to text. Civil POV pushing requires a lot of research to prove in a noticeboard, but it doesn't require much research to actually see that it's happening from the Joe Biden talk page.  Please take a break from my talk page.  I don't want to experience SEALIONING.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 20:17, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The following sanction now applies to you:

You are banned from interacting with SPECIFICO per the interaction ban policy for 1 month.

You have been sanctioned for battleground conduct, repeatedly casting aspersions, and making accusations of bad faith editing such as Special:Diff/954305836/954419847, Special:Diff/955950634, and Special:Diff/956096968 in relation to edits on the article Joe Biden.

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/American politics 2#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. — Wug·a·po·des​ 00:23, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Overturned per AN discussion — Wug·a·po·des​ 20:54, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To enforce an arbitration decision and for repeatedly violating your interaction ban after warnings, you have been blocked temporarily from editing. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block or other sanctions.

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.

---

Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "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."

You were warned here, here, and here to focus on your own conduct in your appeal (not the person who you were banned from interacting with) and instead you focused on the other editor's conduct here, clarified that you were in fact commenting on the other editor's conduct and not your own here, and continued to argue for a ban on the editor here after being told not to. — Wug·a·po·des​ 05:16, 16 May 2020 (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).

Kolya Butternut (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 appealing the block[43] which I received for "repeatedly violating [my] interaction ban after warnings". The cited violations occurred while I was appealing and asking for clarification on the talk page of the administrator who imposed the IBAN.[44] In my appeal and clarification requests I had repeatedly asked that my IBAN be modified from a one-way IBAN to a two-way IBAN. In order to request this change it was necessary for me to discuss the other editor. The administrator repeatedly stated that the other editor was not responsible for my behavior, and that trying to convince them otherwise is not covered by WP:BANEX. I was not claiming that the other editor was responsible for my behavior; I was asking that my IBAN be modified to two-way because the other editor was also at fault (and due to the admin's procedural errors). The administrator did not state that it was improper to discuss the other editor in the context of this request; the administrator did not follow WP:ADMINACCT by answering my specific requests for clarification, instead the administrator repeatedly told me that the other editor was not responsible for my conduct, something I never claimed. Kolya Butternut (talk) 06:29, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Declined. There should be a meaningful chance of success, even if small, to do so, and I don't see a meaningful chance of success here. Yamla (talk) 11:59, 16 May 2020 (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.

Yamla, may I ask for policy clarification? Am I permitted to ask for a modification of an IBAN from one-way to two-way during an appeal? That is not clear to me from policy, and the administrator did not tell me not to ask that the other editor be banned.

Hypothetically, what would an Editor A do if they were subject to a one-way IBAN and an Editor B who they were not to interact with began harassing them? The WP:BANEX policy does not speak to that, but I assume Editor A would be permitted to discuss Editor B in a request for an administrator to impose a two-way IBAN. Where is the policy which addresses this? If Editor A would be permitted to discuss Editor B in this context, wouldn't I also be permitted to discuss the editor I was IBANNED from when asking for a ban modification?

Also, is there a way for me to comment at AN during my appeal? I thought I was clear, but I want to emphasize that the administrator's comments on my block are misrepresentations of what happened. I was not given a blanket instruction not to discuss the other editor's conduct, and I was not told not to ask for a ban on the other editor. The administrator may have intended to say those things, but they were not communicated. Kolya Butternut (talk) 12:48, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Generally if you comment here and ask for it to be copied over people will do so. However I should caution you that from what I've seen, in an appeal to the community it's generally best if you keep such comments to a minimum and mostly in direct reply to questions. Commenting too much in your appeal is often not beneficial. And I say this as someone who likes to edit my comments or add on to what I've already said, a lot, but ideally you should have already said all that needs to be said in the initial appeal. While you can't always predict what questions will come up, you shouldn't need clarifications before anyone asks a question. Nil Einne (talk) 14:17, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kolya Butternut, this is a 48 hour block for violating your IBan. The important lesson here is when this brief block has expired, do not return to engage Wugapodes in a similar discussion. And if you appeal your IBan at AN or AE, do not start criticizing the other editor in your efforts to get it lifted. Any appeal has to be made based on your behavior, reassuring admins that you will not cast aspersions again. If you try to attempt to justify your aspersions, you will not be successful. And if you continue with your old behavior once your IBan is lifted, you will receive a more substantial block.

You have to learn how to discuss your differences without insulting or casting aspersions upon other editors. It's not an impossible skill to learn, any editor who works in controversial areas must master it if you wish to continue editing here. Good luck. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:29, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Liz, thank you for commenting, but I have been left with more questions than answers. Wugapodes is the blocking administrator and thus under obligation to offer clarification for their actions, so returning to their talk page is appropriate (unless both my IBAN and 48 hour block are reversed as improper). Wugapodes blocked me based on a misperception of our discussion, as I stated above.

Secondly, please do not assert that I have been "insulting or casting aspersions upon other editors". I do not know that that is an accurate characterization of my behavior, and Wugapodes has not clearly addressed my questions. My understanding is that even if the accusations I made were accurate and supported by evidence, my behavior would still be considered as "casting aspersions" because I did not bring my complaint to a noticeboard fast enough. I feel, however, that my words were a final warning which did not require action pending what I anticipated would be Bradv's administrator action. Kolya Butternut (talk) 17:19, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Unblocked per AN discussion — Wug·a·po·des​ 20:55, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kolya Butternut, my unreserved apology for declining your unblock request earlier. I was very clearly mistaken to do so. Welcome back and I sincerely wish you much enjoyment with your future editing. --Yamla (talk) 20:57, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I supported your unblock, so welcome back. As advice moving forward, uless you want to get yourself reblocked sooner rather than later, try not being bold but rather seek consensus for your changes on the talkpages, regards. Govindaharihari (talk) 18:04, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I had thought it would be ok to make this BOLD edit to consensus per this discussion with administrator MelanieN, but she may not have known the current restrictions at Donald Trump. Kolya Butternut (talk) 18:16, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mandruss was exactly right to Revert, and Govindaharihari is right that this was not a good idea. Especially if you are just off of a block. You can't change consensus on your own, or on the basis of one conversation with an administrator (last month, in which I did NOT suggest that consensus should or would change, but just asked what you had in mind - and repeatedly told you I didn't think it would be a good idea but that I couldn't stop you from trying). OK, you made a BOLD edit; it got reverted; so go to the talk page and Discuss, see if you can get the consensus modified. And (advice, not an order) don't do any other BOLD edits to the article, especially if they are challenging or skirting around the edges of an existing consensus, since I gather you are on rather thin ice at that article. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:58, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You said that I was free to boldly insert such information into the article and see how it goes,[45] so this is what I have done. I pinged you because I was surprised by the implication of the revert summary[46] that bold edits are not appropriate here. I did not mean to suggest that I achieved consensus through our conversation. I do not appreciate your tone. I am not on thin ice at this article. Kolya Butternut (talk) 19:18, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kolya. I've asked this before but didn't get a response. But if possible, could you reply to my RFC on the Millennials talk page about modifying the lead? I know you've been in favor of this kind of idea before.--CherokeeJack1 (talk) 21:16, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CherokeeJack1, I think it's better to find a source that says "typically" before adding that.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 22:42, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some sources:

https://www.aarp.org/content/dam/aarp/ppi/2018/05/millennial-family-caregivers.pdf

https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/millennial-divide-generation-split-old-young-financial-crash-internet-smartphones-a7704021.html

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/millennials-spend-a-staggering-amount-on-rent-by-the-time-theyre-30-2018-03-26

https://consumerclarity.com/marketing-insights-delivered/millennial-marketing-insights/

https://www.mybusiness.com.au/human-resources/5800-millennials-v-gen-z-how-they-spend-save-and-work

--CherokeeJack1 (talk) 23:47, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I dunno; it's going to be hard to find a good source that synthesizes everything I would want.  I feel like it's good enough now.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 01:36, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CherokeeJack1, maybe FrenchScholar could help you with the Millennials lead. They did good work at Generation X. Kolya Butternut (talk) 02:45, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is to let you know that I have posted a discussion about you at WP:ANI. The discussion may be found here. --MelanieN (talk) 18:23, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to say that I would ask to have a conversation with a mediator somewhere such as Discord before a decision is made. I don't find the message board format conducive to understanding. If an editor wants they can email me to set that up, and then let the community know if they think I can be expected to adhere to policy. Now that I've invited folks to email me I can step away from Wikipedia and ignore pings and everything. Kolya Butternut (talk) 03:50, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The following sanction now applies to you:

You have been topic-banned from any pages or discussions related to 2020 United States presidential election, candidates, issues and events, broadly construed for a period of six months

You have been sanctioned for refusal to listen and accept feedback/consensus, and for escalatory and copious rhetoric, which has disrupted editing and admining in this topic area; example, discussions here, here, here, here and here.

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/American politics 2#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. Abecedare (talk) 22:02, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]