User talk:Kolya Butternut/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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.

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Arbitration enforcement

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

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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

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)