HEY ButterSlipper ( talk) 10:15, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
![]() |
Hi ButterSlipper! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. We hope to see you there!
Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:01, 27 August 2021 (UTC) |
Hi ButterSlipper! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor at
National Endowment for Democracy that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia – it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as
typo corrections or reverting obvious
vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Please see
Help:Minor edit for more information. Thank you.
David Biddulph (
talk)
17:12, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
Taking your question at face value and responding here so as not to derail that thread: comments like " irrational, disgraceful and prejudice reverting" (as well as " your obscene falsehoods" elsewhere) are where you're characterizing another editor instead of focusing on content. That's an ineffective method of debate on Wikipedia. It could also be construed as a pattern of personal aspersions. Please read WP:CIVIL, one of Wikipedia's policies. Schazjmd (talk) 23:31, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
Hi ButterSlipper. I encourage you to read the full WP:Talk page guidelines. The part I quoted very much matches the spirit of the policy. It is not civil to edit war on someone else's talk page or to continue posting despite being asked to stay away. Things seem heated between you and Neutrality; it would definitely be the smart move for you to back away. Firefangledfeathers ( talk) 04:25, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
Please
stop attacking other editors. If you continue, you may be
blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people.
Acroterion
(talk)
05:11, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
Acroterion, in my opinion ButterSlipper is currently engaging in an exhausting array of accusations, personal attacks, battleground statements, and quasi-legal threats; for example, within the past two hours:
and today:
That's in addition to the edit-war on Adrian Zenz that he is currently engaged in [1] [2] [3] [4]. Softlavender ( talk) 11:26, 9 September 2021 (UTC); updated 09:46, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
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 articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
Acroterion (talk) 05:16, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.
Acroterion
(talk)
11:06, 2 September 2021 (UTC)ButterSlipper ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Hi admins. I came to Wikipedia because I found it fascinating and a way for me to contribute to a public project for a warm community. I am appealing my block now because I believe the block was unnecessary for preventing disruption on Wikipedia. The allegation that was thrown towards me in a warning was that I was perpetrating personal attacks. There was no evidence offered by Acroterion other than a reference to my conduct with Neutrality. When they had accused me of these attacks and I was genuinely confused. I had tried to reply politely and in good faith as Wikipedia manners go and then I had been blocked, accused of being coy and also accused of continuing hostility towards Neutrality after the warning. Reviewing my latest interaction with Neutrality at the time demonstrates that I was not committing any personal attacks.[1] Please showcase the legitimate personal attacks or violations of Wikipedia's standards I had exercised or undo this block. I only want to support the Wikipedia project. Thank you. ButterSlipper (talk) 11:56, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
Decline reason:
This looks like a good block. You were being very hostile using terms like irrational, disgraceful, prejudice, asinine, lazy, and absurd. This seems to be simply because someone did not agree with you.
You were given a clear warning by administrator Acroterion which you responded to by insisting that you were unaware of any transgression.
Not long after that you carried on with words like bias, slander, dodgy, and immature. I want you to read Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a battleground. Simply put you need to handle people disagreeing with you without making it personal. HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 12:18, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
References
ButterSlipper ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
My block has already expired and I have had a discussion with the admin who blocked me let me be unblocked now please 😭 it has been more than 60 hours now. ButterSlipper ( talk) 04:22, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Your block has expired, you are no longer blocked. If you are experiencing a block you will have to post the block message you are seeing so we can investigate it. HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 04:24, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
It says "Stop hand nuvola.svg You are currently unable to edit Wikipedia due to an autoblock affecting your IP address." HighInBC ButterSlipper ( talk) 04:28, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
Block message:
Autoblocked because your IP address was recently used by "ButterSlipper". The reason given for ButterSlipper's block is: "Personal attacks or harassment".
Decline reason: This account is no longer directly blocked, you should not be getting such a message; you will need to tell us the IP address involved for us to be able to help you. 331dot ( talk) 07:59, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
For the record, I have worked to compromise with the blocking admin Acroterion and the expiration has already occurred. ButterSlipper ( talk) 07:45, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
Hi 331. The "block id" is 11247682. My IP is 192.168.1.105. ButterSlipper ( talk) 08:05, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
Could someone more knowledgable look at this? 331dot ( talk) 09:10, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
Do not add personal information about other contributors to Wikipedia without their explicit permission, as you did at
User talk:Bobfrombrockley. Wikipedia operates on the principle that every contributor has the right to remain completely anonymous. Posting personal information about another user is strictly prohibited under Wikipedia's
harassment policy. Wikipedia policy on this issue is strictly enforced and your edits have been
reverted and/or
suppressed, not least because such information can appear on web searches. Wikipedia's privacy policy is to protect the privacy of every user, including you. Persistently adding personal information about other contributors will result in being
blocked from editing.
Primefac (
talk)
12:32, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
Please refrain from using talk pages such as
Adrien Zenz for general discussion of the topic or other unrelated topics. They are for discussion related to improving the article in specific ways, based on
reliable sources and the project
policies and guidelines; they are
not for use as a forum or chat room. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting
our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. See
here for more information. Thank you.
Horse Eye's Back (
talk)
15:38, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
In addition please review Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, it is one of the most important things to understand here. Horse Eye's Back ( talk) 15:38, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war according to the reverts you have made on
Adrian Zenz. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to
collaborate with others, to avoid editing
disruptively, and to
try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Points to note:
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Softlavender ( talk) 09:45, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, discussion pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments, as you did at
WP:RSN, is considered
bad practice, even if you meant well. Even making spelling and grammatical corrections in others' comments is generally frowned upon, as it tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Take a look at the
welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. —
Mikehawk10 (
talk)
13:32, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
Firefangledfeathers ( talk) 15:41, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
This was your reply on User:Horse Eye's Back's talk page today. @ Acroterion: the block doesn't seem to have made much difference. Doug Weller talk 16:15, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
@ Horse Eye's Back:. Might be best to disengage now. You are understandably het up. @ ButterSlipper: we don't use words like "defame" or "slander" toward one another. Those are more than personal attacks. You are straying into no legal threats territory. I recommend you disengage for now, and read up on the links I've left, as well as WP:AGF. Thanks. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 01:55, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
I see 1. [ [13]] 2. [ [14]] 3. [ [15]] 3 Reverts, in the last 12 hours, and note wp:3rr is not some magic upper limit you have to breach to be edit warring (read wp:editwar, very carefully). Slatersteven ( talk) 10:36, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
On September 7th you were given notice of the general sanctions in place on the topic of the Uyghur genocide. Since then you have been engaging in pushing a point of view and clear cute edit warring related to this topic.
The community came to a consensus to implement these general sanctions [16] due to trouble in this topic area. They wanted the existing rules of Wikipedia held to a higher standard. This means that rules are enforced strictly in this topic. The notice you were given on the 7th means you are aware of these sanctions are held to them. You can see details here: Wikipedia:General sanctions/Uyghur genocide.
Your behavior already justifies action in this area but I am instead giving you this warning.
Further disruption at the topic of the "Uyghur genocide", broadly construed, will result in a discretionary sanction action ranging from a block to a topic ban from the area. This warning covers any disruptive behavior in the topic area and not just behavior that has already taken place or mentioned here. HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 02:49, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
A further note on your conduct toward other editors: it's best to have clean hands when accusing others of personal attacks; it's been only four days since your block expired for personal attacks, assumptions of bad faith, and personalization of disputes. Did you see my comments up the page concerning your edit-warring and swipes at other editors yesterday evening? For at least the fourth time, stop treating discussions with other editors as personalized conflicts. Momentary contrition followed by renewed boundary-pushing is growing wearisome. Acroterion (talk) 02:55, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
I have already told you what I think, as have others. You just have not accepted it. HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 04:28, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
HighInBC Need help?
Just ask.
08:15, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
Your post can be found at: WP:ANI#Concerns about Softlavender by Butterslipper. HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 08:15, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
You have now been told by multiple experienced editors and by multiple admins you are in the wrong. You now need to take that onboard if you are to avoid a block. Slatersteven ( talk) 10:21, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
You need to back away and drop the ANI stuff, and start to edit in areas not related to China, right now you are on a straight line to a block, and you need to realize that you need to stop fighting your corner. Just accept you were wrong and walk away. Slatersteven ( talk) 11:26, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
If it were solely up to me? I'd give you a topic-ban of some sort for 6-months, for your own good (to keep you away from the areas, other editors are frustrated with you, about). But alas, it's not solely up to me :( GoodDay ( talk) 17:05, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
Howdy. Personally, I've no problem with what you have on your userpage, as it's your choice. But, I suspect many editors will be a tad annoyed with the Ben Norton quotation. GoodDay ( talk) 08:27, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
Would you mind removing that homophobic slur from your user page? The term "faggot" has a long history of hate and cruelty behind it. I do realize that it has been re-claimed by some gays in real life, but Wikipedia is not the place to make that point, when more often than not, it is still used with disparaging intent to insult gay men and homophobic-bullying of gay boys in schools. To this day, I still find it extremely offensive. Thanks. Isaidnoway (talk) 15:15, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
ButterSlipper. I was going to advice you about that userbox, btw. But, figured you'd eventually hear about it from someone else. Rightly or wrongly, there's quite a few infoboxes that are restricted from userpages. GoodDay ( talk) 16:50, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
A request was made for someone to come here and try to help bring some clarity to the situation. As I am completely uninvolved I will try to do this because I hate to see any editor that claims to be here to improve the encyclopedia not be given the chance to talk, listen and learn. Personally, I don't care how you feel about Wikipedia. I could care less what you put on your user page. I have read the AN/I discussion. If you are willing to listen I will try to explain how you can still avoid a block. It does not require a change in your personal beliefs but will include a change in how you edit on Wikipedia. If you are not interested then I will not waste any more of our time. I just want an acknowledgement. I promise to be kind, considerate and understanding. If you acknowledge that you would like help then I ask you to do the same. It is ultimately your choice. My offer stands until you respond or until the conclusion of the AN/I discussion. -- ARose Wolf 18:36, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
To enforce a community ban ( WP:CBAN), you have been site banned indefinitely. The unban procedure is outlined at WP:UNBAN. El_C 13:04, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
Bans imposed by the community may be appealed to the communityhow do I appeal to the community? ButterSlipper ( talk) 14:31, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
My advice is to wait a minimum of 6 months before trying to appeal this ban. You will be appealing to the same community that just banned you, so it is unlikely to be granted this soon after. HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 22:19, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
HEY ButterSlipper ( talk) 10:15, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
![]() |
Hi ButterSlipper! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. We hope to see you there!
Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:01, 27 August 2021 (UTC) |
Hi ButterSlipper! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor at
National Endowment for Democracy that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia – it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as
typo corrections or reverting obvious
vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Please see
Help:Minor edit for more information. Thank you.
David Biddulph (
talk)
17:12, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
Taking your question at face value and responding here so as not to derail that thread: comments like " irrational, disgraceful and prejudice reverting" (as well as " your obscene falsehoods" elsewhere) are where you're characterizing another editor instead of focusing on content. That's an ineffective method of debate on Wikipedia. It could also be construed as a pattern of personal aspersions. Please read WP:CIVIL, one of Wikipedia's policies. Schazjmd (talk) 23:31, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
Hi ButterSlipper. I encourage you to read the full WP:Talk page guidelines. The part I quoted very much matches the spirit of the policy. It is not civil to edit war on someone else's talk page or to continue posting despite being asked to stay away. Things seem heated between you and Neutrality; it would definitely be the smart move for you to back away. Firefangledfeathers ( talk) 04:25, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
Please
stop attacking other editors. If you continue, you may be
blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people.
Acroterion
(talk)
05:11, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
Acroterion, in my opinion ButterSlipper is currently engaging in an exhausting array of accusations, personal attacks, battleground statements, and quasi-legal threats; for example, within the past two hours:
and today:
That's in addition to the edit-war on Adrian Zenz that he is currently engaged in [1] [2] [3] [4]. Softlavender ( talk) 11:26, 9 September 2021 (UTC); updated 09:46, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
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 articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
Acroterion (talk) 05:16, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.
Acroterion
(talk)
11:06, 2 September 2021 (UTC)ButterSlipper ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Hi admins. I came to Wikipedia because I found it fascinating and a way for me to contribute to a public project for a warm community. I am appealing my block now because I believe the block was unnecessary for preventing disruption on Wikipedia. The allegation that was thrown towards me in a warning was that I was perpetrating personal attacks. There was no evidence offered by Acroterion other than a reference to my conduct with Neutrality. When they had accused me of these attacks and I was genuinely confused. I had tried to reply politely and in good faith as Wikipedia manners go and then I had been blocked, accused of being coy and also accused of continuing hostility towards Neutrality after the warning. Reviewing my latest interaction with Neutrality at the time demonstrates that I was not committing any personal attacks.[1] Please showcase the legitimate personal attacks or violations of Wikipedia's standards I had exercised or undo this block. I only want to support the Wikipedia project. Thank you. ButterSlipper (talk) 11:56, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
Decline reason:
This looks like a good block. You were being very hostile using terms like irrational, disgraceful, prejudice, asinine, lazy, and absurd. This seems to be simply because someone did not agree with you.
You were given a clear warning by administrator Acroterion which you responded to by insisting that you were unaware of any transgression.
Not long after that you carried on with words like bias, slander, dodgy, and immature. I want you to read Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a battleground. Simply put you need to handle people disagreeing with you without making it personal. HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 12:18, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
References
ButterSlipper ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
My block has already expired and I have had a discussion with the admin who blocked me let me be unblocked now please 😭 it has been more than 60 hours now. ButterSlipper ( talk) 04:22, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Your block has expired, you are no longer blocked. If you are experiencing a block you will have to post the block message you are seeing so we can investigate it. HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 04:24, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
It says "Stop hand nuvola.svg You are currently unable to edit Wikipedia due to an autoblock affecting your IP address." HighInBC ButterSlipper ( talk) 04:28, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
Block message:
Autoblocked because your IP address was recently used by "ButterSlipper". The reason given for ButterSlipper's block is: "Personal attacks or harassment".
Decline reason: This account is no longer directly blocked, you should not be getting such a message; you will need to tell us the IP address involved for us to be able to help you. 331dot ( talk) 07:59, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
For the record, I have worked to compromise with the blocking admin Acroterion and the expiration has already occurred. ButterSlipper ( talk) 07:45, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
Hi 331. The "block id" is 11247682. My IP is 192.168.1.105. ButterSlipper ( talk) 08:05, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
Could someone more knowledgable look at this? 331dot ( talk) 09:10, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
Do not add personal information about other contributors to Wikipedia without their explicit permission, as you did at
User talk:Bobfrombrockley. Wikipedia operates on the principle that every contributor has the right to remain completely anonymous. Posting personal information about another user is strictly prohibited under Wikipedia's
harassment policy. Wikipedia policy on this issue is strictly enforced and your edits have been
reverted and/or
suppressed, not least because such information can appear on web searches. Wikipedia's privacy policy is to protect the privacy of every user, including you. Persistently adding personal information about other contributors will result in being
blocked from editing.
Primefac (
talk)
12:32, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
Please refrain from using talk pages such as
Adrien Zenz for general discussion of the topic or other unrelated topics. They are for discussion related to improving the article in specific ways, based on
reliable sources and the project
policies and guidelines; they are
not for use as a forum or chat room. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting
our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. See
here for more information. Thank you.
Horse Eye's Back (
talk)
15:38, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
In addition please review Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, it is one of the most important things to understand here. Horse Eye's Back ( talk) 15:38, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war according to the reverts you have made on
Adrian Zenz. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to
collaborate with others, to avoid editing
disruptively, and to
try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Points to note:
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Softlavender ( talk) 09:45, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, discussion pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments, as you did at
WP:RSN, is considered
bad practice, even if you meant well. Even making spelling and grammatical corrections in others' comments is generally frowned upon, as it tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Take a look at the
welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. —
Mikehawk10 (
talk)
13:32, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
Firefangledfeathers ( talk) 15:41, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
This was your reply on User:Horse Eye's Back's talk page today. @ Acroterion: the block doesn't seem to have made much difference. Doug Weller talk 16:15, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
@ Horse Eye's Back:. Might be best to disengage now. You are understandably het up. @ ButterSlipper: we don't use words like "defame" or "slander" toward one another. Those are more than personal attacks. You are straying into no legal threats territory. I recommend you disengage for now, and read up on the links I've left, as well as WP:AGF. Thanks. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 01:55, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
I see 1. [ [13]] 2. [ [14]] 3. [ [15]] 3 Reverts, in the last 12 hours, and note wp:3rr is not some magic upper limit you have to breach to be edit warring (read wp:editwar, very carefully). Slatersteven ( talk) 10:36, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
On September 7th you were given notice of the general sanctions in place on the topic of the Uyghur genocide. Since then you have been engaging in pushing a point of view and clear cute edit warring related to this topic.
The community came to a consensus to implement these general sanctions [16] due to trouble in this topic area. They wanted the existing rules of Wikipedia held to a higher standard. This means that rules are enforced strictly in this topic. The notice you were given on the 7th means you are aware of these sanctions are held to them. You can see details here: Wikipedia:General sanctions/Uyghur genocide.
Your behavior already justifies action in this area but I am instead giving you this warning.
Further disruption at the topic of the "Uyghur genocide", broadly construed, will result in a discretionary sanction action ranging from a block to a topic ban from the area. This warning covers any disruptive behavior in the topic area and not just behavior that has already taken place or mentioned here. HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 02:49, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
A further note on your conduct toward other editors: it's best to have clean hands when accusing others of personal attacks; it's been only four days since your block expired for personal attacks, assumptions of bad faith, and personalization of disputes. Did you see my comments up the page concerning your edit-warring and swipes at other editors yesterday evening? For at least the fourth time, stop treating discussions with other editors as personalized conflicts. Momentary contrition followed by renewed boundary-pushing is growing wearisome. Acroterion (talk) 02:55, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
I have already told you what I think, as have others. You just have not accepted it. HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 04:28, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
HighInBC Need help?
Just ask.
08:15, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
Your post can be found at: WP:ANI#Concerns about Softlavender by Butterslipper. HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 08:15, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
You have now been told by multiple experienced editors and by multiple admins you are in the wrong. You now need to take that onboard if you are to avoid a block. Slatersteven ( talk) 10:21, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
You need to back away and drop the ANI stuff, and start to edit in areas not related to China, right now you are on a straight line to a block, and you need to realize that you need to stop fighting your corner. Just accept you were wrong and walk away. Slatersteven ( talk) 11:26, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
If it were solely up to me? I'd give you a topic-ban of some sort for 6-months, for your own good (to keep you away from the areas, other editors are frustrated with you, about). But alas, it's not solely up to me :( GoodDay ( talk) 17:05, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
Howdy. Personally, I've no problem with what you have on your userpage, as it's your choice. But, I suspect many editors will be a tad annoyed with the Ben Norton quotation. GoodDay ( talk) 08:27, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
Would you mind removing that homophobic slur from your user page? The term "faggot" has a long history of hate and cruelty behind it. I do realize that it has been re-claimed by some gays in real life, but Wikipedia is not the place to make that point, when more often than not, it is still used with disparaging intent to insult gay men and homophobic-bullying of gay boys in schools. To this day, I still find it extremely offensive. Thanks. Isaidnoway (talk) 15:15, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
ButterSlipper. I was going to advice you about that userbox, btw. But, figured you'd eventually hear about it from someone else. Rightly or wrongly, there's quite a few infoboxes that are restricted from userpages. GoodDay ( talk) 16:50, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
A request was made for someone to come here and try to help bring some clarity to the situation. As I am completely uninvolved I will try to do this because I hate to see any editor that claims to be here to improve the encyclopedia not be given the chance to talk, listen and learn. Personally, I don't care how you feel about Wikipedia. I could care less what you put on your user page. I have read the AN/I discussion. If you are willing to listen I will try to explain how you can still avoid a block. It does not require a change in your personal beliefs but will include a change in how you edit on Wikipedia. If you are not interested then I will not waste any more of our time. I just want an acknowledgement. I promise to be kind, considerate and understanding. If you acknowledge that you would like help then I ask you to do the same. It is ultimately your choice. My offer stands until you respond or until the conclusion of the AN/I discussion. -- ARose Wolf 18:36, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
To enforce a community ban ( WP:CBAN), you have been site banned indefinitely. The unban procedure is outlined at WP:UNBAN. El_C 13:04, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
Bans imposed by the community may be appealed to the communityhow do I appeal to the community? ButterSlipper ( talk) 14:31, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
My advice is to wait a minimum of 6 months before trying to appeal this ban. You will be appealing to the same community that just banned you, so it is unlikely to be granted this soon after. HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 22:19, 17 September 2021 (UTC)