User talk:Kolya Butternut: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 02:42, 10 November 2020

Archives

Archive 1	Archive 2	Archive 3
Archive 4	Archive 5

A belated welcome!

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:

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]

Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction, 27 May 2020

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]

Talk:Anne Frank

This edit seems unwise to me. I would like to avoid seeing more editors banned or blocked out of editing in the topic area concerned, so I would suggest trying a less WP:BAIT-ey approach in future. Regards. Newimpartial (talk) 13:59, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently it was unwise, but it was a literal question, referencing my previous use of the term, meant to be blunt not baity. Kolya Butternut (talk) 15:44, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ansari lead

Please use the article talk page and dispute resolution channels and do not keep inserting UNDUE negative content in the lead. You risk sanctions. SPECIFICO talk 02:50, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SPECIFICO, it is you who is edit warring and now misrepresenting events. You reverted longstanding text,[1] and I restored it. At that point you should have taken it to the talk page but instead reverted it again.[2] This follows your edit in April where you removed text with false information in your edit summary, and you had never edited this article before until that time when I was editing it. Do not come back to my talk page about this; continue this discussion at the article talk page. Kolya Butternut (talk) 03:14, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have been editing that article since January 2018, when the woman first promoted this dubious, trivial internet controversy. So I have been editing that page for roughly a year and a half before your first edit there. Facts matter.

BLP is a cardinal policy on this site. It is also important not to make false statements about other editors, such as your apparent insinuation that I followed you to that page with some sort of bad edit. Please review WP:ASPERSIONS and WP:BLP. SPECIFICO talk 10:50, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't been editing that page since January 2018; you edited it for a month at that time and then you came back this April and made an improper reversion of my edit at the time we were having a dispute. I apologize for misremembering that you had never edited it.

You came to my talk page with false accusations of edit warring which you have not apologized for. I asked you to stay off my talk page and yet you responded and with more threats and superficially civil incivility. As I see no evidence of this behavior changing I am asking you to stay off my whole talk page for good. Kolya Butternut (talk) 13:12, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I will add here that the text in the lead was not actually longstanding. While it was apparently first added on April 5th,[3] it had not been stable. Kolya Butternut (talk) 22:22, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Drag king image

I was very disappointed to see that you had added a photo again where I had advised you how important it is to add a source and a name to the caption, but that you did not do anyway. Don't really know how you can feel it's constructive to challenge me like that. It's not. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 22:04, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SergeWoodzing, you asked me to add a source and a caption,[4] without providing any policy justification, and I saw no need for it. Per WP:PRESERVE, if you think my edit could be improved please improve it yourself, but do not keep removing edits which improve the encyclopedia without citing any policy reason to do so; I feel it is disruptive. I have repeatedly explained to you that drag kings are not necessarily professionals -- that anyone can go to a party and choose to be a drag king for the night. Perhaps the lead sentence of Drag King should be changed to be like Drag queen, which states: A drag queen is a person, usually male, who uses drag clothing and makeup to imitate and often exaggerate female gender signifiers and gender roles for entertainment purposes. Drag king even states that the term drag king is sometimes used in a broader sense, to include female-bodied people who dress in traditionally masculine clothing for other reasons.

Even though you have provided no justification for requiring the lead image to depict a notable professional drag king, I have provided you with a source.[5] If you continue reverting edits with no policy justification I will have to go to the edit warring noticeboard. Kolya Butternut (talk) 23:01, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Do you not know how to add the source you found? If that's the problem, I'll do it for you. Otherwise, please add it now! --SergeWoodzing (talk) 12:55, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, I disagree with you that a source is appropriate. Kolya Butternut (talk) 13:18, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notice - Discretionary Sanctions related to gender

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 (a) GamerGate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed. 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 see the Arcom decision at the following link for relevant principles and standards of behavior. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate#Final_decision SPECIFICO talk 17:20, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

September 2020

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for violations of Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:26, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is very simple. You stated that an individual is a "drag king", but have added no reference to indicate that this particular individual is considered a "drag king". That is the BLP violation. I am not certain what was difficult in you understanding that. Your edit summary claimed you added a source, but you did not add any. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:32, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Seraphimblade, in my edit summary[6] I included a diff[7] showing that I added a source[8] to the image file[9] of Gizell Timpani performing as "Valentino King". The image is now sourced, showing that this particular individual is known as a drag king. Do you feel it was a BLP violation because the source was not in the article itself? My preference was to not name her in the caption because I didn't want readers to have the impression that only professional performance artists are considered drag kings, but I didn't think it mattered where the source was located for it to comply with what you're saying. So my first question is, were you aware I had added a source to the image file? Kolya Butternut (talk) 22:00, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The image that was in my mind was the one at Transgender which does not have a source in the article, but does have a source in the image file. Kolya Butternut (talk) 22:11, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I see that you had added a source to the Commons file, and that does confirm that this individual was considered a drag king. Given that, I'll unblock you. Two things, though: First, yes, the source must be in the article, not on Commons or elsewhere. Secondly, if someone raises a BLP concern, do not just make the edit again. Discuss it first, edit after, not the other way around. The correct thing to do would have been to say "Will this source address the concern?", not just put the image back. (In this case it will, The Guardian is a reasonably reliable source and directly confirms it.) Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:14, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Seraphimblade, with all due respect, you blocked me without even reading my edit summary. I feel like I'm being held to an unfair standard. I also think it is not a BLP violation to not include a source, so I don't think blocking me could have in any way been justified. It is not controversial to call a person in drag a person in drag. A drag king is A woman, especially a performer, who dresses as a man.[10] The article also explains that drag kings are not necessarily women. Kolya Butternut (talk) 02:05, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I made clear that I read your edit summary. It was not clear, from reading that, that you had attempted to add a source on Commons rather than in the article, nor would any reasonable person expect you did that. Sources for articles go in those articles, not somewhere else. So far as what you think about BLP, you are certainly welcome to your opinions on it, but the standard will remain that any potentially controversial assertion requires a reliable reference which directly confirms that claim, with no exceptions. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:40, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Seraphimblade, my edit summary contains a diff of the edit to the commons file,[11] so I'm not sure what else a reasonable person would think. I hear your conclusory statement that calling someone a drag king is controversial, but you have been unwilling to discuss my questions. Kolya Butternut (talk) 02:50, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I have. I am not going to continue discussing them ad nauseum because you do not like the answers. Those remain the answers. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:08, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration enforcement

There is an Arbitration Enforcement proceding concerning you at WP:AE. SPECIFICO talk 20:02, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I very much understand the offense taken. I would be very angry too. But I suggest you don't dwell on it at AE, and I really really strongly suggest with a cherry on top that you don't post to their talk page again (I've removed your post there). There is still a one-way i-ban in effect. I'm not ready to do this myself quite yet, but let me know if something this personal happens again, and I'll get consensus somewhere to make this a 2-way i-ban. But note that it would need to be something else personal, not just criticizing your edits or trying to get you sanctioned. That comes with the AP territory. Using personal insults like "it" doesn'tcome with the territory, and won't be allowed to happen again without at least reciprocating the i-ban. --Floquenbeam (talk)

Wait; you don't have a one-way i-ban with SPECIFICO? Did it expire? I may have screwed up here, I was reasonably sure you did. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:14, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It was appealed. Kolya Butternut (talk) 00:17, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aha. I interpreted "overturn and unblock" as "overturn the block and unblock", which... I know, doesn't really make sense. I see now it meant the i-ban was overturned. Ugh. I'll fix my mistake at AE. Do you want me to reinstate your comment on their talk page? Or let sleeping dogs lie? I guess you can also ignore 90% of the babble up above, too. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:22, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what's best; it's up to you, but I finally found what I was looking for:

SPECIFICO, please do not ever refer to me as "its" again. I take such language as a transphobic personal attack. Kolya Butternut (talk) 15:41, 11 May 2020 (UTC) [12] Kolya Butternut (talk) 00:26, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
Let me know if that happens again. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:55, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
I feel that his AE statement was it happening again. Isn't my past statement to him enough evidence for me to cite WP:CIVILITY 2. (d) lying, along with all the other false statements? Kolya Butternut (talk) 00:58, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
I understand, but for myself, prefer to leave a clear final warning first (which I've done) rather than block after an hour's discussion, and a fix and apology. You might find another admin who thinks differently. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:01, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
I appreciate it when admins aren't trigger-happy. You haven't seen what I've seen yet. Kolya Butternut (talk) 01:05, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
While I have no intention of participating in the AE discussion, I wanted to point out that the "mansplaining" accusation, which SPECIFICO made here and has not retracted, strikes me as a potentially serious violation. Newimpartial (talk) 01:09, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

@Floquenbeam: can I ask you about the DeJoy thing? I don't understand my precise sanction. Obviously I hear how he's covered in the news, but I don't think he's actually in the executive administration. The campaign finance scandal concerns the years 2000 to 2014.[13] I'm not trying to debate my way out of this, I just want to understand things precisely. Kolya Butternut (talk) 02:19, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I can give you my initial impression, to do with what you will, but not an in-depth verdict considering all relevant facts; I simply don't have the time to delve too deep. I'm not going to opine one way or the other at AE.

I believe the DeJoy edit was a topic ban violation. If he was just some random Carolina businessman, I can see how it wouldn't have been. But he is currently a large Trump donor, and currently heavily involved with the RNC (which, especially in election years, is essentially indistinguishable from presidential politics), and (although postmaster general is an oddly chosen position, complicating things) I think I'd say he's "in the Trump administration". I think these ties to Trump mean that stories about him (even his past) are related to the 2020 Presidential election. IF he did what he's accused of, it's a crime either way, but it's a bigger deal because it has repercussions in the presidential election.

I suggest to people under topic bans that they stay further away from the topic than they think necessary out of an abundance of caution. It's not wise to say "I think I can make a plausible case that this isn't in the topic area", I think it's smarter to say "can I imagine someone making a plausible case that it is in the topic area". --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:46, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so there's nothing technical about it; the sanction just applies to any subjects whose stories are at all related to the election. Honestly, I'm so spacey I'm surprised I haven't made an explicit violation already. I wanted to pay attention to what was going on in political articles, but I've now removed them from my watchlist because it's too easy for me to get distracted. Kolya Butternut (talk) 03:02, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Floquenbeam, I think I'm within 500 words at AE when you subtract the many signatures, but can I add the evidence I found which I discussed at SPECIFICO's talk page? It may bring me over 20 diffs too. Kolya Butternut (talk) 20:15, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am probably a poor person to ask about that. I wander by AE sometimes out of curiosity, and (very rarely) to opine or act, but I'm not an AE regular. I don't know how you request an exemption, since there are no clerks and no arbs. It will probably come back to bite me to put this in writing, but my own inclination would be to just go ahead and go slightly over if necessary, and if an admin complains, ask them for an exemption. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:19, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SPECIFICO and I both have around 700 words minus all the signatures. Yes, I have more, but it takes a lot of words to disprove even one small lie. Kolya Butternut (talk) 00:46, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. You commented at AE in a way that might make it look like I am an administrator but I am not one. Just to be clear.--MONGO (talk) 04:54, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you; by the time I wrote that I had forgotten I read you were a former admin. Kolya Butternut (talk) 05:31, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You were right about this

Wugapodes, regardless of whatever else we disagreed about, you were right that I hadn't understood WP:ASPERSIONS. After AE I skimmed our discussion and noticed that. Kolya Butternut (talk) 18:19, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the ping, and more importantly for being willing to acknowledge mistakes. It's a rare trait unfortunately. I'm sorry we had that interaction, but I'm glad we both have had the chance to learn from it. I look forward to how you'll use your newfound understanding, and hopefully it makes your editing more pleasant. — Wug·a·po·des 21:11, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aziz Ansari: "apologized" (generally) vs "directly apologized" in Netflix special

TPG

While you are free to introduce new arguments and alternative article text sources and content, you should not -- per TPG -- be changing the header of a section that has the limited subject and purpose established by its original poster. Please restore the talk page header that was about the apology "Grace" quoted in her account of the date to Babe.net and pursue any suggestions you have in that section, a subsection of your own captioning, or a separate new section that you may establish. It is not OK to edit war a simple descriptive section header. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 15:52, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SPECIFICO, this is your last warning; never post on my talk page again. In the future if you would like to communicate with me (including continuing this discussion) you may do so by pinging me to your talk page.

Your heading is a BLP violation,[14] and the discussion in that section is precisely about the text describing the lack of "direct" apology in his Netflix special. A large part of the confusion in the discussion no doubt is a result of the section header. If you disagree please go to BLP/N. You removed the text[15] based on a consensus of confused editors who didn't understand what they were !voting on,[16] and previously you repeatedly attempted to change the well-sourced stable version against consensus by changing the line "directly apologizing for his alleged behavior" with false or misleading edit summaries [17],[18],[19] adding to the confusion. Kolya Butternut (talk) 16:43, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reason for ban from my talk page

For context, SPECIFICO is banned from my talk page for intentionally misgendering people, including me, by calling us "it" despite our protests.[20] He lied about it by feigning ignorance.[21] We can see by this comment, for example, that he is very well informed: Your repeated references to @Steeletrap: with the masculine pronoun constitute a personal attack and are unacceptable on Wikipedia. You are well aware from past discussions that Steeletrap is a woman. Moreover, as I believe that she has stated to you her particular sensitivity to being denigrated for her transgender status. I have long been concerned about gender bias within libertarian community and I must also tell you that I and thousands of others within the movement consider any misogynist or anti-transgender slur to be personally offensive. Please strike your references to Steeletrap in the masculine gender and replace with the feminine forms. SPECIFICO talk 15:11, 31 October 2013 (UTC) [22] Kolya Butternut (talk) 17:25, 17 September 2020 (UTC) [reply]

Contributing to the confusion

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

Kolya Butternut, two things occur to me: (1) SPECIFICO should certainly stay off your user page. No two ways about that. (2) I came here to try to discern why you think the Aziz Ansari TP header is a BLP violation, and I am not able to do that. Rather, I find more insistence that anyone who disagrees with you is "confused," which I confess, feels insulting. As I often say, reasonable minds can differ, even without "confusion." Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 17:55, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Explanation of confusion at Talk page !vote

The disputed longstanding stable text was Ansari has been criticized for not directly apologizing for his alleged behavior. Part of the confusion was that it was not clear that the criticism was specifically about Ansari's statements in his Netlix special Aziz Ansari:Right Now, regardless of whether he had apologized in other contexts. On the talk page I commented in part: Rolling Stone's summary of the criticism from the Vox piece cited, and others: "Others, however, pointed out that Ansari acknowledged, but didn’t directly apologize for, his alleged behavior.[23][24] I explained this again in my comment in the !voting section (scroll down past where I accidentally cut an editor's name out): [25] Editors appear to have voted to remove the line about not directly apologizing because they felt he had indeed directly apologized; they did not seem to understand that the line was limited to Ansari's comments in his special. Kolya Butternut (talk) 22:55, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SPECIFICO

I have closed your report without action. You can read why I did in my comment at the SPI. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 21:59, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dreamy Jazz, I'm not sure what step you're suggesting; do you mean to say that if I want the case reopened I am to message other admins on their talk pages? I wouldn't think a CU would make sense after all these years, but I think the behavioral evidence should be investigated. Kolya Butternut (talk) 23:09, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

clerk / CU was because those are the editors who usually deal with SPI cases. I have reworded that last part. Its probably best to go to WT:SPI to request a review. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 23:18, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, they opened an another report at AE. Kolya, I suggest taking a long break from editing the same articles, and interacting with SPECIFICO. You seem like a resourceful editor, but the continued harassment of other editors by abusing administrative policies doesn't help anyone. Jonahloci (talk) 18:51, 21 October 2020 (UTC)Blocked sock Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 22:07, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You don't understand what's happening here. SPECIFICO followed me to Aziz Ansari and has made it impossible to edit there. The SPI case was simply preparation for my initial AE case. I was initially drawn into the AE process after their vexatious AE complaint. I have returned no harassment in kind, only pleas to admins to improve the collaborative environment by sanctioning the editor. Kolya Butternut (talk) 19:10, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jonahloci, you just created your account yesterday, but you seem pretty involved in Wikipedia; did you edit under another account? Kolya Butternut (talk) 19:15, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jonahloci has been reported at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Zalgo by Rosguill. A check shouldn't be too long away. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 21:13, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Has been confirmed Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 22:06, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Dreamy Jazz: Would you strike Jonahloci's comment at WP:AE#Statement by Jonahloci? Kolya Butternut (talk) 22:16, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kolya Butternut, sure. I will do that now. Apologies that I missed that. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 22:18, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction

The following sanction now applies to you:

An indefinite interaction ban from interacting with SPECIFICO

You have been sanctioned for the reasons provided in response to this arbitration enforcement request.

This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate#Final decision and, if applicable, the procedure described at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.

You may appeal this sanction using the process described here. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 11:56, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Seraphimblade, am I permitted to discuss my case with an administrator and ask them for help filing an appeal? Kolya Butternut (talk) 01:33, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My first choice would be to ask you to understand my experience and to help me prove yourself wrong, which you could either see as an edifying exercise or an obnoxious request, or both? Kolya Butternut (talk) 04:16, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not entirely sure what you're driving at here, but yes, you are permitted to appeal the sanction. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:09, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Kolya Butternut, my rough count is that 9 or 10 admins participated in the admin portion of this complaint's discussion. I think taking the stance of proving their decision wrong is digging yourself into a deeper hole. The advised approach at this point is to prove that this ban is unnecessary by following it scrupulously. Then, in 6-12 months, appeal it if you feel strongly about it. But an Interaction ban is actually trying to protect you from conduct that could lead to a block or a topic ban so there really is no advantage to getting rid of one until it really serves no purpose any more.

A quick appeal, within a day or two of the I-Ban being imposed, will be shot down fast. Read the room: Admins are tired of seeing interpersonal disruption. My advice is to adjust your editing and keep your distance. And don't think about filing complaints for perceived I-ban violations or it will boomerang back at you. Admins want both of you to stop paying attention to each other completely. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:10, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Seraphimblade, I understand I can appeal the sanction; I am asking if I can get an administrator's help with that. For instance, can I discuss the evidence with an administrator and would they be permitted to make a statement in the result section of the AE request? Ideally I would hope that you would argue my case for me and avoid a noticeboard, if that makes sense. Mostly I'm concerned you wouldn't want to spend the time on it. I would like to work with you rather than against you. As it is now, I do not see that I am responsible for the disruption, but if you were to see everything from my perspective you may be able to point out where I did something clearly wrong and avoidable. If I escalate this to a noticeboard appeal and I have no one else who understands what happened it is likely to hurt me further, but it's the right thing to do. I have been angry with you but it doesn't feel good to let my ego stay involved and I hope you can let your guard down too.

Liz, I'm drawn to editing here because I care about the truth. In articles we are limited to the truth of what the RS say, but if we are to be accurate in our articles I think we want to strive for a culture of openness and honesty among editors, rather than strategizing and politicking. I understand that the structure of our conduct noticeboards is not set up for complicated long-term behavioral problems, and that bringing those cases to that forum has had disruptive consequences. That is why I am asking an administrator to try to understand what happened from my perspective. If I had been able to communicate my experience earlier it could have saved the wider community from the headache. Kolya Butternut (talk) 05:56, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you appeal, anyone who wishes to make a statement at the appeal is permitted to do so, but you may not solicit anyone to do that. Except for actually making an appeal and as necessary to make that appeal, you are not permitted to discuss anything regarding SPECIFICO anywhere on Wikipedia, and will be blocked for violating the ban if you do so. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 14:39, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Seraphimblade, I'll try to break down the questions:

Is discussion through Wikipedia email ok?
Am I permitted to neutrally ask an uninvolved party to investigate the case? (Or is it not possible to neutrally ask for help, because I am obviously asking for help for my side?)
If yes, would that person then be permitted to make a statement?
Would you be permitted and willing to accept my appeal through a discussion rather than just a statement from me? I don't want to argue; I want to work together to find the truth. Kolya Butternut (talk) 15:24, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I can't realistically stop you from emailing anyone you want to. I suppose you can ask anyone you want to "investigate" the case, but there were plenty of people who already did at AE. You can appeal to me as the sanctioning admin, and I will listen to what you have to say, but I would want to hear it from you, not someone else. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 15:54, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As an addendum, though, if you're talking about discussing by email with me, that's a no. Unless something involves something off-wiki and private, I discuss things on-wiki and transparently, not via backchannels. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 15:56, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, you seem to be the only person I am permitted to discuss this with on-wiki. So, could an appeal with you take the form of a discussion? This is a complex case. Kolya Butternut (talk) 16:14, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are already discussing it with me, right here. But I have yet to hear you say why I should rethink the outcome. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:24, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Seraphimblade, ok. Firstly, can you tell me what you specifically decided the sanction is for? Policies aren't cited here or in the close so I don't want to assume. Kolya Butternut (talk) 17:37, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The AE report is, I think, clear enough. Primarily, the issues were harassment of SPECIFICO, disruption via bickering, and the filing of a vexatious AE report only a few days after a previous one was closed with no action. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:48, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Seraphimblade, would you prefer that I ping you with each response, or would it be more reasonable for you to check in here at your leisure? I don't do well with imprecision....

You feel my last AE report was groundless and intentional harassment.
Bickering refers to arguing at AE?
In addition to describing the last AE report as vexatious, you said I harassed SPECIFICO; where do you feel my behavior crossed that line, and do you think that was my intention...does that matter? Kolya Butternut (talk) 00:22, 27 October 2020 (UTC) typo Kolya Butternut (talk) 01:58, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am not interested in going into a massive degree of detail. As I stated, I believe the material at the AE report is already quite clear, and I am not going to rehash it ad nauseum. Please either say why you believe I ought to reconsider, or carry on doing something else. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 00:32, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(As to your question about pinging me, I don't mind either way. I will have the page on watch, so I will see when you've said something, but it does not bother me if you'd like to add a ping as well.) Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 00:39, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi KB, FYI a one-sentence-long example of a specific policy you broke is at WP:FOLLOWING: Using dispute resolution can itself constitute hounding if it involves persistently making frivolous or meritless complaints about another editor. Your welcome, 2A02:C7F:BE04:700:3920:992F:79F9:176 (talk) 13:02, 28 October 2020 (UTC) Clearly not a new editor. Kolya Butternut (talk) 19:27, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am very inactive on wikipedia but I do find its machinations interesting. Kolya, were you not invited to open a second complaint? Would this suggest that your actions were not vexatious? My apologies if this comment is out of place. 68.148.75.147 (talk) 20:05, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kolya, as a mostly uninvolved editor, I’m here to tell you that you would do well to heed Liz’s advice. Try to remain conflict-free for six months, if that works out, appeal the interaction ban. I know you feel aggrieved, but sometimes in life we have to take a loss. This is one instance. I personally think your filing of the SPI case was a key mistake. You’ve had your shot and it didn’t work out. Don’t keep digging down this road. starship .paint (talk) 00:12, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's probably true that the SPI case is what was viewed the most poorly, but that's not a reason to not have filed it. It seems simple; I found behavioral evidence supporting my AE case, SPI is the forum for recording that evidence. I think I failed by not stating in the initial filing that my goal was to have the evidence documented and evaluated as part of a broader investigation. I also made a formatting error; I realize now it would have been permitted to create a custom format to put the IPs into a separate list so it didn't look like I was calling them sockpuppets. I learned the hard way at AE that I didn't have to stick to the given formatting.

I'm disappointed that no one commented on the SPI evidence; the context of the creation of their account is material to a case about a long-term behavioral pattern. Both the SPI evidence and non-AGF reaction to it are part of why my sanction should be overturned. The evidence is strong; it is material; and it was disregarded. It was not vexatious. Kolya Butternut (talk) 02:50, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment reinforces a false narrative

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

Kolya, I don’t think you get it. Let’s talk about a hypothetical active editor. If this editor was so terrible, so disruptive, I’m sure someone would be able to find recent evidence of misconduct within the past year. If the only other evidence of misconduct being brought is eight years old, that seems like a pretty weak case already when discussing repeated misconduct, and reflects badly upon the accuser - it looks like a vendetta. That is why according to Dennis Brown, “using diffs that are more than a year old is seldom helpful.” P.S. - note that the “standard offer” on Wikipedia is six months, which means that editors may consider changes in behaviour after six months. Eight years is 16 times of that, it’s certainly long enough for anyone to have turned over a new leaf. starship .paint (talk) 14:03, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Recent evidence abounds and was provided. Kolya Butternut (talk) 17:04, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wowzers. Good luck to you. starship .paint (talk) 06:15, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Seraphimblade, I believe SPECIFICO's new AE sanction[26] shows that my last AE complaint has merit. Here SPECIFICO violated the Consensus required DS by reverting the restoration of longstanding text with a false edit summary, and editor Darouet states that Further examination of their editing at Talk:Julian Assange shows that this incident is consistent with SPECIFICO's behavior overall. While my AE complaint cited a violation of WP:NOCON rather than the enforced editing restriction, their later violation of the restriction shows that I had accurately judged that the 18 October edit I cited demonstrated disregard for AE complaints and the consensus process. I thought that it was best to keep the case simple, but if I had previously provided more diffs to illustrate their overall behavior at Aziz Ansari it would have put things into context.

I can provide detailed evidence as part of this appeal to show that my AE complaints had merit on their own, but Awilley has concluded that SPECIFICO has engaged in gaming behavior,[27] and Swarm has witnessed SPECIFICO making bad faith comments.[28]

The goal of my last AE complaint was for the community to believe my experience and help end the disruption, and specifically to restore the status quo ante bellum version of Aziz Ansari so that RfCs would be feasible. Awilley's recommendation to them upon sanction is the behavior which I would have wanted to see from SPECIFICO: In the future I highly recommend just self-reverting when you find yourself in violation of a rule. Not only can it save you headache, but it lowers the tension at the article and talk page, making a more conducive atmosphere for editors to work together and find consensus/compromise.[29]

My first AE was about their overall pattern of behavior. I had been planning to file an AE report before they filed their case against me, and I have evidence of that. My anxiety around this has been tied to the feeling that no one believes me, and I felt that the SPI case was a clear illustration of their ethics on Wikipedia which I believe have not changed (only becoming more covert over time). It was and is essential to connect their present behavior to their initial behavior (and behavior in between).

Harassment

I did not want to focus on harassment because I did not want an IBAN, but the harassment has only come from SPECIFICO. After not having edited Aziz Ansari in over two years,[30] they followed me to the article the same day I made my first edit to the article in over six months,[31] where they reverted me with a false edit summary.[32] (Their recent sanction also involves a false edit summary.) This began the dispute. It would take some time to explain everything that happened, but the clearest example of harassment was when they filed an AE complaint against me[33] when I made unintentional minor violations of my TBAN.

When they filed the AE report, they:

Did not bring the mistake to my attention first.
Misrepresented the subject of the TBAN.
Repeatedly misgendered me intentionally.
Lied about having misgendered me intentionally.

I feel that the moment that I became an experienced editor was when I received my TBAN in May, and since then I have tried to stay cool when encountering bad faith behavior, but my weakness is when I experience the feeling that administrators do not believe me, especially when I ask for help. Otherwise I believe that I am able to ignore harassment.

If I am not able to skillfully bring cases to noticeboards which involve subtle (but serious) misconduct, then I could instead go to an administrator who has the time to look over it with me.

I think Levivich well-summarized the AE cases which preceded the recent report by Darouet and sanction by Awilley:

AE report progression

AE #1, 8 Sep 2020, Specifico v. KB, involved (among other things) Specifico referring to KB as "it". Closed with "Kolya Butternut is reminded to be more mindful of the boundaries of their TBAN. SPECIFICO is warned to be more careful in their use of gender pronouns, and to avoid the use of object pronouns for human beings. No further action at this time; if anyone wishes to file a broader AE request looking at the general conduct of either user, they are free to do so." Because of that last sentence, we can't fault editors for bringing further AEs.

AE #2, 26 Sep 2020, Thucydides411 v. Specifico. Another editor had removed content that had been in the article for years [34] [35] and Thucydides reverted the removal. Specifico re-removed the content with this 24 Sep 2020 edit, with the edit summary "Typical nonsense conspiracy theory pandering to his fans and the ignorant", which is either a BLPVIO (if aimed at Assange) or uncivil (if aimed at Thucydides). That thread was closed with "No consensus for sanctions".

AE #3, 13 Oct 2020, KB v. Specifico. That involved (among other things, including edits to Aziz Ansari) two statements made by Specifico on 7 Oct 2020 about Thucydides: "Too bad that Thuc would take advantage of Awilley's tireless volunteer efforts and attention to continue his crusade for this bit of self-serving Assange propaganda" and "Thuc pins us to the lowest rungs of Graham's triangle, repeating his POV ever more insistently". That thread closed with "SPECIFICO is reminded that being rude isn't particularly helpful in discussions, and it is a slippery slope that can lead to sanctions later ..."

AE #4, 21 Oct 2020, KB v. Specifico, is the current thread, involving this 18 Oct 2020 edit at Aziz Ansari with the edit summary "Restoring current consensus version that has been stable for a month ...".

So in this AE #4, Specifico is reverting someone claiming that if the content has been stable for a month, it's the "current consensus version". But in AE #2, Specifico was arguing the exact opposite, re-instating a reverted edit that removed content that had been in the lead for years, and claiming that the onus for inclusion was upon those who wanted to include it. This sort of editing is disruptive, and it should be addressed. An IBAN won't help.

I have pinged editors just to let them know I am discussing them. Kolya Butternut (talk) 19:59, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please consider this your one and only warning. You are interaction banned from discussing SPECIFICO. That includes here. If you do so again, you will be blocked. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:31, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Seraphimblade, I don't understand. I am appealing my IBAN as not necessary by showing that my reports were not vexatious and the nature of the interpersonal conflict was not harassment from me. Kolya Butternut (talk) 21:16, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe that looked like I was asking to reopen my reports? I didn't mean to make it sound that way. Kolya Butternut (talk) 21:23, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You said nothing about your report for which you were sanctioned. You were discussing a later one you had nothing to do with. In any case, you have said nothing so far that convinces me, and the fact that you are still monitoring SPECIFICO despite the interaction ban certainly gives me no confidence. So insofar as you are asking me to reverse the sanction, I am not going to do that. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 23:56, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Are you still open to discussing an appeal further? Kolya Butternut (talk) 00:31, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No. I believe I just said that. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:42, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 238: / Line 238: @@
 ::Maybe that looked like I was asking to reopen my reports? I didn't mean to make it sound that way. [[User:Kolya Butternut|Kolya Butternut]] ([[User talk:Kolya Butternut#top|talk]]) 21:23, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 :::You said nothing about ''your'' report for which you were sanctioned. You were discussing a later one you had nothing to do with. In any case, you have said nothing so far that convinces me, and the fact that you are still monitoring SPECIFICO despite the interaction ban certainly gives me no confidence. So insofar as you are asking me to reverse the sanction, I am not going to do that. [[User:Seraphimblade|Seraphimblade]] <small><sup>[[User talk:Seraphimblade|Talk to me]]</sup></small> 23:56, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
+::::Are you still open to discussing an appeal further? [[User:Kolya Butternut|Kolya Butternut]] ([[User talk:Kolya Butternut#top|talk]]) 00:31, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
+:::::No. I believe I just said that. [[User:Seraphimblade|Seraphimblade]] <small><sup>[[User talk:Seraphimblade|Talk to me]]</sup></small> 02:42, 10 November 2020 (UTC)