User talk:Kolya Butternut: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 23:26, 7 January 2023 editKolya Butternut (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users6,512 edits →Newimpartial: new sectionTag: New topic ← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 07:55, 3 December 2024 edit undoHuggums537 (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users, IP block exemptions, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers14,251 edits →Congrats!: Comment
(37 intermediate revisions by 9 users not shown)
Line 18:		Line 18:

	==My log history==		==My log history==
	{{hat\|All of the logs which I received as an experienced editor are referenced in my .}}		{{hat\|All of the logs which I received as an experienced editor prior to April 2023 are referenced in my .}}
	'''Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction'''		'''Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction'''
	{{Ivmbox		{{Ivmbox
Line 36:		Line 36:
	{{hab}}		{{hab}}

			{{hat\|April 2023 block, }}
	== Re: Williams, suicide language and bludgeoning ==
			== Please drop the stick ==

			Kolya, as I hinted at my recent , I believe your recent conduct (and, especially the refusal to drop the stick) regarding ] has been subpar, to say the least. If this continues anymore, you will be blocked for disruptive behavior. Just stop. ] (]) 00:18, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
	Just to expand more on my comment from the Robin Williams talk page (as it deserves more expansion off that page), you should be very much cautioned that your behavior at the Williams page, as well as the discussion over at the "wheelchair-bound" language, as well as from at least one other debate I saw you at (]) fall well in the behavior of ], particularly as these have the tone of ]. Together, there's no direct action that can be taken from that that I can see, but this is considered disruptive to consensus building, and if there's long-term patterns of this, you may find others less hesitant to take that to AN/ANI. You can see the frustration in the wheelchair language debate from long-standing editors like EEng, for example. Be aware of how much you are participating in these discussions and if you are bringing new arguments. Keeping on repeating the same arguments, and repeating it over multiple threads is not helpful. That BLUDGEON page has really good advice for how to participate in discussions without excessively throwing your input into it. Please take this as advice from me, and not as any type of "warning" or the like towards admin action. --] (]) 19:36, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
			:I'm not sure I understand how asking for a policy to be upheld is disruptive when the content of my inquiry was not addressed. I would suggest that the response from admins/arbs has led to the disruption. ] (]) 00:20, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
	:I'm commenting here rather than Masem's page, because that's where the discussion is. Further to my comment , I wonder if ] you would consider striking your comment about "rewarding the bludgeoning behavior". We make edits in article space to improve the information we write to our readers, and making or not making them should never be influenced by your reaction to another editors behaviour. You've just made explicit that a reason for your reluctance to improve our content was that it "rewarded" someone you are in conflict. Indeed, several of your comments about editors potentially gaming the system, seem to show you are over concerned with the wiki politics and less so of our readers. You might want to consider that you've had that page watchlisted and have consistently blocked attempts by multiple editors to revise the language long before Kolya even stared editing Misplaced Pages. You cited ] above when you commented on ] but perhaps the ] section best describes your role on that page since Williams died. ] has advice I think for both of you.
			:: I received your email but am not going to engage. You are welcome to email arbcom-en@wikimedia.org if you wish to take this any further (I would advice against it) since they are better equipped to handle non-public information. But any further ''on-wiki'' discussion of this will get you blocked. ] (]) 00:31, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
	:As I noted somewhere else, the "righting great wrongs" guideline is ''not'' about language choices by editors in article space. It is about facts, that some editors believe to be true and the world needs to be told and corrected. You might think this is relevant to editors discussing word choices for social reasons but this is wrong. I get that it is handy to have some wiki shortcut that ''seems'' to condone a conservative approach to language change. It doesn't. The irony is that "righting great wrongs" is solved by citing reliable sources and the opinions of experts, and telling editors that their own personal opinions and original thoughts on the matter aren't important. And exactly the opposite is occurring wrt social language choices, where the most vocal and strident voices taking a conservative approach often base their argument entirely on personal opinion, dubious google searches and odd ideas of what Misplaced Pages tends to do. That guideline doesn't help the case at all. I mean, wrt facts, an editor arguing that several dictionaries are wrong or that we should ignore experts, would be laughed out of town. Yet Kolya has brought expert sources to the discussion and two dictionaries and gets told experts should be dismissed.
			::@], I am a member of editor retention project who is sympathetic to your situation due to my own experience of being blocked in the past, and I would like to offer some support in bringing you back to edit if I can. I know you are unable to respond to this, but I hope the message will reach you and help you find hope in coming back. I could not help but notice that your block seemed somewhat well out of process from my perspective since the ] suggests that a or talk page notice ] should contain a link to the discussion if it is a Cban, but at least some kind of ] is due in at least one of these places, and there isn't even an entry about it to explain anything at ] or right either. I don't know hardly anything about arbcom processes, but I thought there was supposed to be some kind of discussions with motions and voting and all that jazz, which you were denied access to, and seems like a BS way of doing business if you ask me since you have no clue what to defend yourself against or any evidence whatsoever that an arbcom decision was even actually made. I'm also saddened by the fact that when I reviewed the related discussions, I found out that the only editor who was willing to give you the good faith benefit of the doubt was {{U\|Sideswipe9th}} in that was quickly shut down by an admin who sadly had to make a bad faith mention about "shit-stirring" for no good reason. The only useful guidance or direction on policy in that situation was about how that was the wrong venue, and the rest was more or less accusation, and personal opinions about what might and might not occur or make for good law. A similar sad situation occurred in a ] where bad faith assumptions were made about you being "unbelievably disrespectful", and being personalized about you having an "unhealthy obsession" with a stern warning that, "you've been told to stop", but again without any guidance or direction on policy, and that discussion was also quickly shut down. In the closure at the which the admin freely admits is just their own personal bad faith opinion that you were just bringing the issue up to "create undue ruckus" is a very sad state of affairs indeed. I don't know what your history was with Flyer, but even if they were right about what they were thinking about your intentions, they handled it very poorly. My policy based advice to you would be to drop the stick because ] is a legitimate reason why a user might want to have one account "dead" and start editing fresh under a new account. You might argue over a technicality about whether a person is actually living or not, but ''technically'' the only requirements for a clean start are that you quit using your old account, and you don't have any current sanctions against you. Let the dead rest in peace. My advice for requesting an unblock would be to let them know that you were essentially failed by administration to be shown any meaningful policy based guidance to help you understand a good clear useful path to avoiding any disruption, and even if any guidance was offered it was drowned out by personalized accusations, but explain in your words how you have come to an understanding of the reason you were blocked, and why the disruption would stop period. Pro tip: focus way more on yourself than on how administration failed. I sincerely believe they dropped the ball on this, but they are not gonna wanna hear that shit for an unblock request. I hope maybe this will help your case. Good luck to you. ] (]) 04:08, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
	:A final point about blugeon. There is an asymmetry here. Firstly ] explains "The amount of energy needed to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude larger than is needed to produce it." While many folk might have responded to a request to reword the article with a "sure", instead they've had to overcome a machine that tells them such changes are not permitted because politics. Secondly, the text Kolya wanted changed was the current text and incumbency is a huge huge advantage. Objecting to change only requires two letters: "no". So those arguing for change will automatically have the harder job and are likely to write more. That doesn't mean Kolya doesn't need to watch out, but there are numerous edits on that talk page from both of you, back and forth. -- ]°] 12:48, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
			::I do need to clear something up here right away. I'm not in any way suggesting Flyer is editing under a new account, but ''if'' the admins were right about what this editors intentions were or even ''if'' on the other hand this editor happens to be right about what they are claiming, then either way it follows that this editor would need a policy based explanation about why they should drop the stick. I think it is only fair to assume good faith on all sides as far as possible. ] (]) 04:26, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
			::Kolya, another thing that might be very helpful for you to include in your unblock request is the fact that since the correction you did in fact actually get made after your block, this negates the need for you being blocked in the first place since you no longer have any need of bringing the issue up any more since it is now been made a moot point therefore no future disruption is needed to be prevented. ] (]) 06:27, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

			== April 2023 ==
	== ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message ==

			{{arbcomblock}} ] <sup>]</sup> 18:46, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
	<table class="messagebox " style="border: 1px solid #AAA; background: ivory; padding: 0.5em; width: 100%;">
	<tr><td style="vertical-align:middle; padding-left:1px; padding-right:0.5em;">]</td><td>Hello! Voting in the ''']''' is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on {{#time:l, j F Y\|{{Arbitration Committee candidate/data\|2021\|end}}-1 day}}. All ''']''' are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

			== Kolya Butternut unblocked ==
	The ] is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the ]. 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 ], ], editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The ] describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

			Following a successful appeal to the Arbitration Committee, {{user\|Kolya Butternut}} is unblocked subject to the following restriction indefinitely, which may be appealed after 12 months have elapsed:
	If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review ] and submit your choices on the ''']'''. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{tlx\|NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. <small>] (]) 00:44, 23 November 2021 (UTC)</small>
	</td></tr>
	</table>
	<!-- Message sent by User:Cyberpower678@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2021/Coordination/MM/06&oldid=1056563377 -->

			Kolya Butternut may discuss no other editor's undisclosed personal details anywhere. This includes both onwiki as well as any other online location or other Wikimedia-associated offline location.
	== Discretionary sanctions topic area changes ==

			For the Arbitration Committee, ] (]) 17:42, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
	In a process that began last year with ], the Arbitration Committee is evaluating ] (DS) in order to improve it. A larger package of reforms is slated for sometime this year. From the work done so far, it became clear a number of areas may no longer need DS or that some DS areas may be overly broad.
			: Discuss this at: '''{{slink\|Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard\|Kolya Butternut unblocked}}'''<!-- ] (]) 17:43, 18 October 2023 (UTC) --><!--Template:hes-->
			{{hab}}

			== Congrats! ==
	The topics proposed for revocation are:
	*Senkaku islands
	*Waldorf education
	*Ancient Egyptian race controversy
	*Scientology
	*Landmark worldwide

			Welcome back. Your recent thank for my edit alerted me that you got your editing privileges back. Sorry I haven't been in contact for such a long time. My own editing activities have been very limited due to me pursuing other passions in recent months. However, I do have a complaint about your restrictions that I intend to prepare for discussion at the link that has been provided by ARBCOM above for discussion about your unblock. The link was here: '''{{slink\|Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard\|Kolya Butternut unblocked}}''' if you or anyone else watching your page would like to participate. ] (]) 15:32, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
	The topics proposed for a rewording of what is covered under DS are:
	*India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan
	*Armenia/Azerbaijan

			I totally forgot to make my complaint about your restrictions, but you have doing very well on them, and the time has now passed for you to be able to request they be lifted and your name be removed from the arbitration section on the ] page. I think you will have to make an ArbCom request to lift the restrictions, but see your listing on the linked page to be sure. <span style="text-shadow:3px 3px 3px lightblue">]<sup>'''537'''<sub>]</sub> (]\|])</sup></span> 07:55, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
	Additionally any Article probation topics not already revoked are proposed for revocation.

			== ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message ==
	Community feedback is invited and welcome at ]. --] (]) 16:59, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
	<!-- Message sent by User:Barkeep49@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions/2021_review/Update_list&oldid=1062223122 -->

	== Discretionary sanctions topic area changes ==

	In a process that began last year with ], the Arbitration Committee is evaluating ] (DS) in order to improve it. A larger package of reforms is slated for sometime this year. From the work done so far, it became clear a number of areas may no longer need DS or that some DS areas may be overly broad.

	The topics proposed for revocation are:
	*Senkaku islands
	*Waldorf education
	*Ancient Egyptian race controversy
	*Scientology
	*Landmark worldwide

	The topics proposed for a rewording of what is covered under DS are:
	*India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan
	*Armenia/Azerbaijan

	Additionally any Article probation topics not already revoked are proposed for revocation.

	Community feedback is invited and welcome at ]. --] (]) 04:36, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
	<!-- Message sent by User:Barkeep49@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions/2021_review/Update_list&oldid=1062223122 -->

	== Discretionary sanctions alert ==

	{{ivmbox \| image = Commons-emblem-notice.svg \|imagesize=50px \| bg = #E5F8FF \| text = 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 '''gender-related disputes or controversies or in people associated with them.''' Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called ] is in effect. Any administrator may impose ] on editors who do not strictly follow ], or the ], when making edits related to the topic.

	To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{tlx\|Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see the ] and the ] decision ]. 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.
	}}<!-- Derived from Template:Ds/alert --> ] (]) 04:02, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

	== Update: Phase II of DS reform now open for comment ==

	You were either a participant in ] (the Arbitration Committee's Discretionary Sanctions reform process) or requested to be notified about future developments regarding DS reform. The Committee now presents ], and invites your feedback. Your patience has been appreciated. For the Arbitration Committee, ] (]) 17:01, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
	<!-- Message sent by User:CaptainEek@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions/2021-22_review/Update_list&oldid=1107985739 -->
	== Replaceable fair use File:Jenny Wright Lawnmower Man publicity photo.jpg ==
	]
	Thanks for uploading ''']'''. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of ]. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the ]. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have ''no free equivalent''; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Misplaced Pages. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:

	# Go to ] and add the text {{Tlx\|Di-replaceable fair use disputed\|<your reason>}} '''below''' the original replaceable fair use template, replacing <code><your reason></code> with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
	# On ], write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

	Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, ], or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

	If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on <span class="plainlinks"></span>. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification, per the ]. If you have any questions, please ask them at the ]. Thank you. <!-- Template:di-replaceable fair use-notice --> ] (]) 01:06, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
	:Link to closed discussion: ] ] (]) 17:19, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

	== Replaceable fair use File:Brooke Adams headshot.jpg ==
	]
	Thanks for uploading ''']'''. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of ]. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the ]. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have ''no free equivalent''; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Misplaced Pages. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:

	# Go to ] and add the text {{Tlx\|Di-replaceable fair use disputed\|<your reason>}} '''below''' the original replaceable fair use template, replacing <code><your reason></code> with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
	# On ], write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

	Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, ], or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

	If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on <span class="plainlinks"></span>. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification, per the ]. If you have any questions, please ask them at the ]. Thank you. <!-- Template:di-replaceable fair use-notice --> -- ] (]) 07:27, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
	:{{u\|Marchjuly}}, what about from a 1975 television movie which doesn't appear to have been copyrighted; is it free per the ? ] (]) 01:52, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
	::It possibly could be {{tl\|PD-US-no notice}} if it can be verified that there's no copyright notice on the back of the photo. It's not clear the second image shown is actually the back of the photo (it looks like something overlaid over the front), but appears to be the same photo with a clearer image of the back. This would be a good thing to ask about at ] because Commons is where such an image should be uploaded. If the image is OK for Commons, then you should upload the full image, and then upload a crop as a separate file since the same license would apply to the crop. You could then use the templates ] and ] to connect the images. I think there is a way to "crop" a file for a Misplaced Pages article's infobox without out actually needing to upload a separate cropped version of the file, but don't know how it's done. -- ] (]) 04:51, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
	:::Commons has a crop tool that can be enabled in Preferences > Gadgets. The tool can be used to crop the photo and the tool will take care of applying the appropriate templates and uploading the crop as a separate file. With the link provided by Marchjuly, it does look very much like it is PD because of lack of notice. Particularly important is that the image of the back of the photo shows date stamps that verify the date falls in the qualifying time persiod. ] (]) 12:52, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
	::@Kolya Butternut: It probably would've been better for you to upload the other version I found which more clearly shows the back of the photo with the time stamps that {{u\|Whpq}} mentioned above. Even if it's not exactly as clean of copy of the front of the photo, there would be less doubt about its copyright status. So, you might want to add a link to that other version to the description of the one you uploaded just for reference purposes. You can add links for the main page and then for the front and back of the photo. There's no way of knowing how long that photo will be available on that website; so, the more information you can provide about it and its lack of copyright status in the file's description, the less likely the photo's licensing will be challenged sometime down the road. You could even add something this discussion to the file's talk page. -- ] (]) 02:07, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

	== Discretionary sanctions review: proposed decision and community review ==

	You are receiving this message because you are ] on the Arbitration Committee's ]. The ] of the ] has now opened. A five-day public review period for the proposed decision, before arbitrators cast votes on the proposed decision, is open through November 18. Any interested editors are invited to comment on the ]. ] (]) 21:56, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
	<!-- Message sent by User:L235@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions/2021-22_review/Update_list&oldid=1114717448 -->

	== ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message ==

	<div class="ivmbox " style="margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px solid #AAA; background-color: ivory; padding: 0.5em; display: flex; align-items: center; ">		<div class="ivmbox " style="margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px solid #AAA; background-color: ivory; padding: 0.5em; display: flex; align-items: center; ">
	<div class="ivmbox-image" style="padding-left:1px; padding-right:0.5em; flex: 1 0 40px;">]</div>		<div class="ivmbox-image" style="padding-left:1px; padding-right:0.5em; flex: 1 0 40px; max-width: 100px">]</div>
	<div class="ivmbox-text">		<div class="ivmbox-text">
	Hello! Voting in the ''']''' is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on {{#time:l, j F Y\|{{Arbitration Committee candidate/data\|~~2022~~\|end}}-1 day}}. All ''']''' are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.		Hello! Voting in the ''']''' is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on {{#time:l, j F Y\|{{Arbitration Committee candidate/data\|2023\|end}}-1 day}}. All ''']''' are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

	The ] is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the ]. 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 ], ], editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The ] describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.		The ] is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the ]. 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 ], ], editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The ] describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

	If you wish to participate in the ~~2022~~ election, please review ] and submit your choices on the ''']'''. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{tlx\|NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. <small>] (]) 01:32, 29 November ~~2022~~ (UTC)</small>		If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review ] and submit your choices on the ''']'''. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{tlx\|NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. <small>] (]) 00:48, 28 November 2023 (UTC)</small>

	</div>		</div>
	</div>		</div>
	<!-- Message sent by User:~~Xaosflux~~@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:~~Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2022~~/Coordination/MM/06&oldid=~~1124425186~~ -->		<!-- Message sent by User:Cyberpower678@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2023/Coordination/MM/05&oldid=1187132262 -->

	== Contentious topics procedure adopted ==

	''You are receiving this message because you are ] on the Arbitration Committee's ].''

	The Arbitration Committee has concluded the ] of the contentious topics system (formerly known as ]), and its final decision is viewable at the ]. As part of the review process, the Arbitration Committee has resolved by ] that:

	{{ivmbox\|1=The above proposals that are supported by an absolute majority of unrecused active arbitrators are hereby enacted. The drafting arbitrators (CaptainEek, L235, and Wugapodes) are directed to take the actions necessary to bring the proposals enacted by this motion into effect, including by amending the procedures at ] and ]. The authority granted to the drafting arbitrators by this motion expires one month after enactment.

	The Arbitration Committee thanks all those who have participated in the ] and all who have helped bring it to a successful conclusion. This motion concludes the 2021-22 discretionary sanctions review process.
	}}
	This motion initiates a one-month implementation period for the updates to the contentious topics system. The Arbitration Committee will announce when the ] of the Committee's decision has concluded and the amendments made by the drafting arbitrators in accordance with the Committee's decision take effect. Any editors interested in the implementation process are invited to assist at ], and editors interested in updates may subscribe to the ].

	For the Arbitration Committee, ] (]) 21:47, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
	: Discuss this at: '''{{slink\|Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard\|Contentious topics procedure adopted}}'''<!-- ] (]) 21:42, 14 December 2022 (UTC) --><!--Template:hes-->
	<!-- Message sent by User:L235@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions/2021-22_review/Update_list&oldid=1125914168 -->

	== Newimpartial ==

	I would like to respond to your questions/comments last made in the section on your talk page I had opened under the heading I still hope we can learn something from our misunderstandings, but after perplexing action I feel it is necessary to maintain strict boundaries with you, so you are now banned from my talk page. You may respond to me on yours if you like.

	I felt that our {{tq\|main dispute is the interpretation of my statement "gender is based on gender roles"}}, and your accusations of gaslighting (#Disrupting editing link above) when I tried to clarify that I did not mean that gender was ''only'' based on gender roles. I did not intend to {{tq\|reduce gender to gender roles}}. I don't know that we can constructively discuss this again until we discuss our dynamics. I will respond to your other comments.

	*{{tq\|My understanding is that you find my participation on certain Talk pages (including this one) combative, sometimes unreflective, and condescending in tone. I would guess that you feel that I sometimes construe your words uncharitably out of a (conscious or unconscious) drive to "win" an argument rather than to understand what you are saying. My sense is also that you believe I have an inappropriate confidence in what I believe that I know and in the judgements I make based on that knowledge. Please let me know what I got wrong just there, and what I left out.}}
	*:Yes, I agree with those things, but I don't know whether you have an appropriate level of confidence in your knowledge of content, because you have often not provided evidence for your assertions. I do feel that you have an inappropriate level of confidence in how you view the conduct of others and yourself.
	*:I feel like you have a pattern of making nonconstructive criticism which has the effect of stonewalling, intentionally or not. I feel like you tell people they are wrong without telling them what is right, and sometimes say what is wrong without responding to the intention behind a question or comment. We could discuss specific examples of these patterns if you would like to engage in the same self-criticism you've stated that you engage in regarding content. ] (]) 23:26, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 07:55, 3 December 2024

Archives

Archive 1	Archive 2	Archive 3
Archive 4	Archive 5

A belated welcome!

Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Misplaced Pages, 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 Misplaced Pages:

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 Misplaced Pages: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)

My log history

All of the logs which I received as an experienced editor prior to April 2023 are referenced in my Dec 2020 WP:AN appeal.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction The following sanction now applies to you: Kolya Butternut (talk · contribs) and SPECIFICO (talk · contribs) are indefinitely prohibited from interacting with, or commenting on, each other anywhere on Misplaced Pages (subject to the ordinary exceptions). You have been sanctioned for the reasons provided in response to this AN discussion. This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate#Final decision and, if applicable, the procedure described at Misplaced Pages: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. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:00, 27 December 2020 (UTC) For clarity, this sanction replaces the one-way interaction ban which is currently in place. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:00, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

All of the logs which I received as an experienced editor prior to April 2023 are referenced in my Dec 2020 WP:AN appeal.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction

The following sanction now applies to you:

Kolya Butternut (talk · contribs) and SPECIFICO (talk · contribs) are indefinitely prohibited from interacting with, or commenting on, each other anywhere on Misplaced Pages (subject to the ordinary exceptions).

You have been sanctioned for the reasons provided in response to this AN discussion.

This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate#Final decision and, if applicable, the procedure described at Misplaced Pages: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. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:00, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

For clarity, this sanction replaces the one-way interaction ban which is currently in place. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:00, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

April 2023 block, background discussion
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Please drop the stick Kolya, as I hinted at my recent closing statement at WP:AN, I believe your recent conduct (and, especially the refusal to drop the stick) regarding Misplaced Pages:Deceased Wikipedians has been subpar, to say the least. If this continues anymore, you will be blocked for disruptive behavior. Just stop. Abecedare (talk) 00:18, 19 April 2023 (UTC) I'm not sure I understand how asking for a policy to be upheld is disruptive when the content of my inquiry was not addressed. I would suggest that the response from admins/arbs has led to the disruption. Kolya Butternut (talk) 00:20, 19 April 2023 (UTC) I received your email but am not going to engage. You are welcome to email arbcom-en@wikimedia.org if you wish to take this any further (I would advice against it) since they are better equipped to handle non-public information. But any further on-wiki discussion of this will get you blocked. Abecedare (talk) 00:31, 19 April 2023 (UTC) @Kolya Butternut, I am a member of editor retention project who is sympathetic to your situation due to my own experience of being blocked in the past, and I would like to offer some support in bringing you back to edit if I can. I know you are unable to respond to this, but I hope the message will reach you and help you find hope in coming back. I could not help but notice that your block seemed somewhat well out of process from my perspective since the block log policy suggests that a block log or talk page notice about your block should contain a link to the discussion if it is a Cban, but at least some kind of an explanation is due in at least one of these places, and there isn't even an entry about it to explain anything at WP:RESTRICT or right here either. I don't know hardly anything about arbcom processes, but I thought there was supposed to be some kind of discussions with motions and voting and all that jazz, which you were denied access to, and seems like a BS way of doing business if you ask me since you have no clue what to defend yourself against or any evidence whatsoever that an arbcom decision was even actually made. I'm also saddened by the fact that when I reviewed the related discussions, I found out that the only editor who was willing to give you the good faith benefit of the doubt was Sideswipe9th in this discussion that was quickly shut down by an admin who sadly had to make a bad faith mention about "shit-stirring" for no good reason. The only useful guidance or direction on policy in that situation was about how that was the wrong venue, and the rest was more or less accusation, and personal opinions about what might and might not occur or make for good law. A similar sad situation occurred in a subsequent discussion where bad faith assumptions were made about you being "unbelievably disrespectful", and being personalized about you having an "unhealthy obsession" with a stern warning that, "you've been told to stop", but again without any guidance or direction on policy, and that discussion was also quickly shut down. In the closure at the requested review which the admin freely admits is just their own personal bad faith opinion that you were just bringing the issue up to "create undue ruckus" is a very sad state of affairs indeed. I don't know what your history was with Flyer, but even if they were right about what they were thinking about your intentions, they handled it very poorly. My policy based advice to you would be to drop the stick because WP:Clean start is a legitimate reason why a user might want to have one account "dead" and start editing fresh under a new account. You might argue over a technicality about whether a person is actually living or not, but technically the only requirements for a clean start are that you quit using your old account, and you don't have any current sanctions against you. Let the dead rest in peace. My advice for requesting an unblock would be to let them know that you were essentially failed by administration to be shown any meaningful policy based guidance to help you understand a good clear useful path to avoiding any disruption, and even if any guidance was offered it was drowned out by personalized accusations, but explain in your words how you have come to an understanding of the reason you were blocked, and why the disruption would stop period. Pro tip: focus way more on yourself than on how administration failed. I sincerely believe they dropped the ball on this, but they are not gonna wanna hear that shit for an unblock request. I hope maybe this will help your case. Good luck to you. Huggums537 (talk) 04:08, 12 July 2023 (UTC) I do need to clear something up here right away. I'm not in any way suggesting Flyer is editing under a new account, but if the admins were right about what this editors intentions were or even if on the other hand this editor happens to be right about what they are claiming, then either way it follows that this editor would need a policy based explanation about why they should drop the stick. I think it is only fair to assume good faith on all sides as far as possible. Huggums537 (talk) 04:26, 12 July 2023 (UTC) Kolya, another thing that might be very helpful for you to include in your unblock request is the fact that since the correction you had been requesting did in fact actually get made after your block, this negates the need for you being blocked in the first place since you no longer have any need of bringing the issue up any more since it is now been made a moot point therefore no future disruption is needed to be prevented. Huggums537 (talk) 06:27, 12 July 2023 (UTC) April 2023 You have been indefinitely blocked by the Arbitration Committee. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, then appeal by emailing the Arbitration Committee (direct address: arbcom-enwikimedia.org). Administrators: This block may not be modified or lifted without the express prior written consent of the Arbitration Committee. Questions about this block should be directed to the Committee's mailing list. Guerillero 18:46, 19 April 2023 (UTC) Kolya Butternut unblocked Following a successful appeal to the Arbitration Committee, Kolya Butternut (talk · contribs) is unblocked subject to the following restriction indefinitely, which may be appealed after 12 months have elapsed: Kolya Butternut may discuss no other editor's undisclosed personal details anywhere. This includes both onwiki as well as any other online location or other Wikimedia-associated offline location. For the Arbitration Committee, Izno (talk) 17:42, 18 October 2023 (UTC) Discuss this at: Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Kolya Butternut unblocked

April 2023 block, background discussion

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Please drop the stick

Kolya, as I hinted at my recent closing statement at WP:AN, I believe your recent conduct (and, especially the refusal to drop the stick) regarding Misplaced Pages:Deceased Wikipedians has been subpar, to say the least. If this continues anymore, you will be blocked for disruptive behavior. Just stop. Abecedare (talk) 00:18, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand how asking for a policy to be upheld is disruptive when the content of my inquiry was not addressed. I would suggest that the response from admins/arbs has led to the disruption. Kolya Butternut (talk) 00:20, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

I received your email but am not going to engage. You are welcome to email arbcom-en@wikimedia.org if you wish to take this any further (I would advice against it) since they are better equipped to handle non-public information. But any further on-wiki discussion of this will get you blocked. Abecedare (talk) 00:31, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

@Kolya Butternut, I am a member of editor retention project who is sympathetic to your situation due to my own experience of being blocked in the past, and I would like to offer some support in bringing you back to edit if I can. I know you are unable to respond to this, but I hope the message will reach you and help you find hope in coming back. I could not help but notice that your block seemed somewhat well out of process from my perspective since the block log policy suggests that a block log or talk page notice about your block should contain a link to the discussion if it is a Cban, but at least some kind of an explanation is due in at least one of these places, and there isn't even an entry about it to explain anything at WP:RESTRICT or right here either. I don't know hardly anything about arbcom processes, but I thought there was supposed to be some kind of discussions with motions and voting and all that jazz, which you were denied access to, and seems like a BS way of doing business if you ask me since you have no clue what to defend yourself against or any evidence whatsoever that an arbcom decision was even actually made. I'm also saddened by the fact that when I reviewed the related discussions, I found out that the only editor who was willing to give you the good faith benefit of the doubt was Sideswipe9th in this discussion that was quickly shut down by an admin who sadly had to make a bad faith mention about "shit-stirring" for no good reason. The only useful guidance or direction on policy in that situation was about how that was the wrong venue, and the rest was more or less accusation, and personal opinions about what might and might not occur or make for good law. A similar sad situation occurred in a subsequent discussion where bad faith assumptions were made about you being "unbelievably disrespectful", and being personalized about you having an "unhealthy obsession" with a stern warning that, "you've been told to stop", but again without any guidance or direction on policy, and that discussion was also quickly shut down. In the closure at the requested review which the admin freely admits is just their own personal bad faith opinion that you were just bringing the issue up to "create undue ruckus" is a very sad state of affairs indeed. I don't know what your history was with Flyer, but even if they were right about what they were thinking about your intentions, they handled it very poorly. My policy based advice to you would be to drop the stick because WP:Clean start is a legitimate reason why a user might want to have one account "dead" and start editing fresh under a new account. You might argue over a technicality about whether a person is actually living or not, but technically the only requirements for a clean start are that you quit using your old account, and you don't have any current sanctions against you. Let the dead rest in peace. My advice for requesting an unblock would be to let them know that you were essentially failed by administration to be shown any meaningful policy based guidance to help you understand a good clear useful path to avoiding any disruption, and even if any guidance was offered it was drowned out by personalized accusations, but explain in your words how you have come to an understanding of the reason you were blocked, and why the disruption would stop period. Pro tip: focus way more on yourself than on how administration failed. I sincerely believe they dropped the ball on this, but they are not gonna wanna hear that shit for an unblock request. I hope maybe this will help your case. Good luck to you. Huggums537 (talk) 04:08, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

I do need to clear something up here right away. I'm not in any way suggesting Flyer is editing under a new account, but if the admins were right about what this editors intentions were or even if on the other hand this editor happens to be right about what they are claiming, then either way it follows that this editor would need a policy based explanation about why they should drop the stick. I think it is only fair to assume good faith on all sides as far as possible. Huggums537 (talk) 04:26, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Kolya, another thing that might be very helpful for you to include in your unblock request is the fact that since the correction you had been requesting did in fact actually get made after your block, this negates the need for you being blocked in the first place since you no longer have any need of bringing the issue up any more since it is now been made a moot point therefore no future disruption is needed to be prevented. Huggums537 (talk) 06:27, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

April 2023

You have been indefinitely blocked by the Arbitration Committee.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, then appeal by emailing the Arbitration Committee (direct address: arbcom-enwikimedia.org).

Administrators: This block may not be modified or lifted without the express prior written consent of the Arbitration Committee. Questions about this block should be directed to the Committee's mailing list. Guerillero 18:46, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Kolya Butternut unblocked

Following a successful appeal to the Arbitration Committee, Kolya Butternut (talk · contribs) is unblocked subject to the following restriction indefinitely, which may be appealed after 12 months have elapsed:

Kolya Butternut may discuss no other editor's undisclosed personal details anywhere. This includes both onwiki as well as any other online location or other Wikimedia-associated offline location.

For the Arbitration Committee, Izno (talk) 17:42, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Kolya Butternut unblocked

Congrats!

Welcome back. Your recent thank for my edit alerted me that you got your editing privileges back. Sorry I haven't been in contact for such a long time. My own editing activities have been very limited due to me pursuing other passions in recent months. However, I do have a complaint about your restrictions that I intend to prepare for discussion at the link that has been provided by ARBCOM above for discussion about your unblock. The link was here: Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Kolya Butternut unblocked if you or anyone else watching your page would like to participate. Huggums537 (talk) 15:32, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

I totally forgot to make my complaint about your restrictions, but you have doing very well on them, and the time has now passed for you to be able to request they be lifted and your name be removed from the arbitration section on the WP:Editing restrictions page. I think you will have to make an ArbCom request to lift the restrictions, but see your listing on the linked page to be sure. Huggums 07:55, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 Misplaced Pages arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:48, 28 November 2023 (UTC)