This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
I’ve been following the different Generation-related articles for a while now and I see that there’s currently a conflict going on over at the Xennials article. I ran into the same issues with the editor on two different Generation articles [1] [2] where the user basically thinks that they own the Generation-related articles, is misrepresenting sources to push their non-neutral POV against reliable sources, is unwilling to compromise and tries to shut down any discussions on the talk pages until the other editors eventually relent and leave. Not sure what can be done about this user’s pattern of disruptive behavior on these articles. Someone963852 ( talk) 23:39, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
I have read your email, and looked at some of the things you mention. I'll try to tell you what I think when I have more time than now. It's fairly complicated, and a quick answer would be misleading. If I haven't got back to you within a couple of days please feel welcome to remind me. The editor who uses the pseudonym " JamesBWatson" ( talk) 15:52, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
When I run the search, the difference between 28k and 19k results is whether "The" is included in the phrase. FYI, I've found that sometimes editors will object very strongly about other editors editing their talk page comments if it's not for one of the reasons listed in WP:TPO.
Hi. If we had the right pictures, I would support going with pictures of dancing or laughing. I think the most efficient way forward would be to find a matching set, or possibly a few matching sets, and then launch an RfC for both articles, so it would only take one round of discussion to settle the issue finally (rather than ping-ponging back and forth). Unfortunately I don't have a lot of time to look right now. Last time, I searched Google images using filters to find public-domain images, then imported them to Commons so I could post them here. I'm happy to look at any pictures you find if you want a second opinion. If you want to take this on, you might create a new page in your userspace to be an image gallery (like User:Kolya Butternut/Man and Woman gallery or something), and after you've collected some options, drop a link at Talk:Man and Talk:Woman, so editors who are interested can watchlist your gallery page and use that talk page for discussion, and then narrow the choices down to some "finalists" for an RfC. Let me know if you need any help with anything. Leviv ich 04:06, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
Oh yeah... I just remembered the other reason I like to upload to Commons instead of Wikipedia :-) Aside from the import tools, they have more specific license templates. And, if there's a deletion issue, for my part I'd rather the editors there decide instead of getting involved in an XfD here (I get involved in enough of those as it is). I haven't uploaded a ton of photos, but I have imported from Pexels to Commons before without a problem (the current lead image at Woman is a Pexels import, for example). I moved the two Pexels photos in your gallery to commons, updated the links, and tagged the WP versions for speedy deletion as duplicates of the Commons version, and I posted at the FfD that I had done so, so that should take care of the issue, and my recommendation would be to send Pexels photos to Commons in the future since they seem to have a specific license template for it. Leviv ich 15:41, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Levivich, I think the photo I added of the woman in striped pants is comparable to the Man image, do you think we're ready for an RfC with a couple of these finalists? Talk:Woman/sandbox Kolya Butternut ( talk) 17:37, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading
File:Adult-artisan-equipment.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate
copyright tag, it may be deleted some time after the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{
PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{
self|CC-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}}
(to require that you be credited), or any tag
here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by MifterBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: Once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. -- MifterBot ( Talk • Contribs • Owner) 00:45, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading
File:Maracaibo Venezuelan Man.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate
copyright tag, it may be deleted some time after the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{
PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{
self|CC-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}}
(to require that you be credited), or any tag
here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by MifterBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: Once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. -- MifterBot ( Talk • Contribs • Owner) 01:00, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading
File:Adult-art-artisan.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate
copyright tag, it may be deleted some time after the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{
PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{
self|CC-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}}
(to require that you be credited), or any tag
here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by MifterBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: Once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. -- MifterBot ( Talk • Contribs • Owner) 01:00, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on File:Adult-art-artisan.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the file appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.
If the image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use it — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Whpq ( talk) 08:33, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Adult-art-artisan.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Whpq ( talk) 08:49, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Adult-art-artisan.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination.
This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot ( talk) 23:55, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
Please do not add defamatory content to Wikipedia, as you did to Candace Owens, especially if it involves living persons. Thank you. wumbolo ^^^ 22:48, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at Candace Owens shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in you being
blocked from editing—especially if you violate the
three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three
reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
Okay, this is my last message.
wumbolo
^^^
10:33, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
Hi, I just wanted to let you know that I cleaned up the formatting of your poll here: Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#The_Atlantic_quote. I didn't change any content; I just made the quotes more readable and assigned them A and B. I apologise if this was rude of me. 84percent ( talk) 05:09, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
Wrong venue. This should be moved to the article's talk page. wumbolo ^^^ 08:49, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
Seeking input from uninvolved editors. This was already discussed at the talk page and went nowhere. --Kolya Butternut (talk) 12:03, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
This is a courtesy notice that the case request for SashiRolls has been declined by the Arbitration Committee. For more information on why the case was declined, please see the link above. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 18:30, 2 May 2019 (UTC).
If a discussion goes off-topic (per the above subsection § How to use article talk pages), editors may hide it using the templates. My comments were not off-topic, and I object to the collapse. If there is a policy which justifies your collapse of my comments please let me know.{{ Collapse top}}
and{{ Collapse bottom}}
or similar templates—these templates should not be used by involved parties to end a discussion over the objections of other editors
repeated assumptions of bad faith and personal attacks, but you are continuing that behavior here. Please stop. Kolya Butternut ( talk) 14:37, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
Let's leave it at that. Kolya Butternut ( talk) 18:24, 12 June 2019 (UTC)I was blocked for calling an edit dishonest, which is apparently not allowed even if what you call "dishonest" really was demonstrably so. Oh well, not the first time I've been blocked for pointing out an inconvenient truth.
The clear evidence is here. If you have evidence for your "accurate" assessment, feel free add it below; otherwise you know what you can do...🌿 SashiRolls t · c 18:48, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
SashiRolls, I wish I had remembered to ask you this before arguing again, but are you able to understand 16th prose? I saw that you have studied Rabelais. I was researching the etymology of the word thornback in the sense of old-maids, and I found that "The word thornbacks was used to refer to old maids in Peter Anthony Motteux's 1694 English translation of François Rabelais' 16th century novels Gargantua and Pantagruel." I'm not sure if the meaning is related, but the word thornbacks is also used in Nashe's Lenten Stuff. Are you able to understand the use of thornbacks in Lenten Stuff? Kolya Butternut ( talk) 01:05, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
Re
this comment, "dishonest, prejudiced, and controlling
" is a
personal attack. Please read
WP:NPA and refrain from insulting other editors. -
SchroCat (
talk)
13:44, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
Regarding this, you clearly only showed up at this article you had never showed up at before because I was there. Here's a piece of advice: Take my talk page off your watchlist and keep me out of your thoughts. If I see anymore hounding from you, you will be taken to ANI and swiftly dealt with, just like all of my other stalkers. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 21:06, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
I think that this very thread is evidence of hounding tendencies and I showed up here on your talk page because I am an administrator and it is part of my job to try to defuse tensions between two otherwise productive editors. I have over 16,000 pages on my watchlist which I scan frequently and I have had many interactions with the other editor over the years. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 17:35, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
It's ironic that Flyer uses WP:HOUND, a guideline designed to prevent bullying, to instead bully others. Obviously Koyla seeing a single article on someone's talk page that is of interest to her is not what the hounding guideline means when it talks about antagonistically following another user around.
Flyer has also honed in on me, so I'm quite familiar with her
WP:WikiBullying. According to one word counting app, Flyer has left
about five pages worth of antagonistic posts on my own talk page, and amongst all that nastiness, you'll find that she has also incorrectly accused me of hounding. Luckily, after that spurious accusation,
a level-headed admin stepped in and noted that there was no indication
that I was doing anything wrong.
On her talk page, Flyer says that There is also a serious harassment issue on Wikipedia; see WP:Harassment. As some very well know, I have been stalked/harassed on Wikipedia a number of times.
I don't doubt that there are cases where Flyer has been subject to harassment. It's ironic, and sad, that she can't see that she also engages in it herself. (
talk page watcher)
WanderingWanda (
talk)
01:16, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
Wikipedia photo of Man is a Mallu guy. Twitter seems to have found him out too
Also, Jack Hadley will be on the mainpage on the 9th [20]. Sans image, sadly. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 13:54, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
Please use the article talk page at Michael Bloomberg to discuss your reasoning before reinstating content that's been challenged by a revert. I see that you have previously received a similar notice about the Discretionary Sanctions in effect on American Politics since 1932 SPECIFICO talk 20:35, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
There are two page sanctions in use, created by two different Admins. The "consensus required" is the more common, but some articles have the 24-hour BRD. In the case of Biden, the 1RR plus 24-hour BRD was added. SPECIFICO talk 23:47, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
You failed to observe the page restrictions at Joe Biden when you reinserted your text that had been reverted shortly before. Please undo and use talk. SPECIFICO talk 03:22, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
Hi Koyla. If possible, could you vote support/oppose on my RFC for changing the lead in the Millennials article?-- CherokeeJack1 ( talk) 21:19, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
Dear Kolya Butternut, thank you so for your words! I'm deeply honored. I'm afraid I cannot recommend anyone who can translate and I sadly cannot, but I can provide a number of sources, most of them in English. If you start an article in Icelandic, that would be just wonderful. I'll provide you with a list of online links and if you can usethem to expand on the basic outline, that would be great. Just a quick point-some of the older sources are a little out of date. That was a fun article to work on as I had to do a detective work to figure this mystery. It seems that Bram Stoker provided an early draft of Dracula to a Swedish novelist around about 1892, which served as the basis of the Swedish serialization in 1899-1900, which in its turn served as the Icelandic version in 1900-1901. Some of the earlier articles from 2017 were not aware of that-I constantly had to revise the article as I dug deeper into this mystery. A good place to start with Dracula by Bram Stoker The Mystery of The Early Editions by Simone Berni, x. Morrisville: Lulu, 2016. If you click on the link here: [25], it has a bit about the Icelandic version of Powers of Darkness. You may find these reviews from 2017 useful, through some of the information is now inaccurate about the origins of the book: [26], [27], and [28]. According to this link from February 2017 here [29], an Icelandic TV producer named Sigurjon Sighvatsson was planning to do a TV mini-series of Powers of Darkness, through I have not able to find out anything more about it. If you translate just a rough draft and if you make use of the material that I provided here, that would just be great. I always felt that people in Iceland should know more about this-it is that sadly that I do not speak Icelandic and therefore I had to disqualify myself for lack of linguistic competence.:(:(. Thank you so the kind words, which are much appreciated here, and I hope all is well. Cheers! -- A.S. Brown ( talk) 04:35, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
Your second revert here [31] [32] violates the 1RR Discretionary Sanction restriction on this article. The fact that you went to BLPN in the interim makes this appear all the worse. It shows that either 1) you understood that there was a BLP issue requiring advice or 2) that you simply were soliciting another editor to do the second revert. Please undo your second revert and, since you've raised the issue at BLPN, await community guidance. Otherwise, this sort of 2rr may get you blocked from editing. You are well aware that the content you keep removing is reliably sourced to Associated Press. Pinging Admin @ Wugapodes: who has been helping with this page. SPECIFICO talk 18:57, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
For the sake of completeness, Kolya Butternut, your second edit also violated the 24-hour BRD page restriction on this article. SPECIFICO talk 19:04, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
either 1) you understood that there was a BLP issue requiring advice or 2) that you simply were soliciting another editor to do the second revertare inappropriate and contribute to making the editing environment unwelcoming. Per your recent logged warning and associated discussion, you should not be commenting on editors this way. Given the way it is phrased, I am also going to assume good faith that you thought user talk pages were not covered by this warning. They are. Continuing to engage in battleground behavior anywhere on the project will likely result in interaction bans or topic bans. — Wug· a·po·des 19:44, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
"Earlier this month Reade filed a police report saying she was assaulted in 1993 in order to give herself safety from threats she has received. A record reviewed by AP didn't mention Biden by name. NPR has reported, however, that a record does name Biden and has filed a Freedom of Information Act request for the full report."[40] So, the AP reviewed one record which didn't name Biden, and NPR reviewed another record which did name Biden, therefore, Biden was named to police. Kolya Butternut ( talk) 09:04, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
You wrote something here about me violating a sanction. What did you mean by that? I am under no BLP or American Politics sanctions. A false unsupported statement is a personal attack and you can be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Previously, you insinuated I had been canvassing here. I am asking you to strike the "sanctions" smear at BLPN and stop making false accusations about me or other editors. @ Wugapodes: SPECIFICO talk 23:25, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
You contacted me by email, but showed no reason that the matter would need to be handled privately. If you would like to discuss that matter, please contact me on-wiki, not via backchannels. Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:17, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
If an edit you make is reverted you must discuss on the talk page and wait 24 hours before reinstating your edit. - MrX 🖋 15:35, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the
guide to appealing blocks (specifically
this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{
unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}
. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard I suggest you use the
arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (
by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page.
Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."
The following sanction now applies to you:
You are banned from interacting with SPECIFICO per the interaction ban policy for 1 month.
You have been sanctioned for battleground conduct, repeatedly casting aspersions, and making accusations of bad faith editing such as Special:Diff/954305836/954419847, Special:Diff/955950634, and Special:Diff/956096968 in relation to edits on the article Joe Biden.
This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2#Final decision and, if applicable, the procedure described at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.
You may appeal this sanction using the process described here. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. — Wug· a·po·des 00:23, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
Overturned per AN discussion — Wug· a·po·des 20:54, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the
guide to appealing blocks (specifically
this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{
unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}
. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard I suggest you use the
arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily.
Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."
You were warned here, here, and here to focus on your own conduct in your appeal (not the person who you were banned from interacting with) and instead you focused on the other editor's conduct here, clarified that you were in fact commenting on the other editor's conduct and not your own here, and continued to argue for a ban on the editor here after being told not to. — Wug· a·po·des 05:16, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
Kolya Butternut ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Please copy my appeal to the
administrators' noticeboard. I am appealing the block
[43] which I received for "repeatedly violating [my] interaction ban after warnings"
. The cited violations occurred while I was appealing and asking for clarification on the talk page of the administrator who imposed the IBAN.
[44] In my appeal and clarification requests I had repeatedly asked that my IBAN be modified from a one-way IBAN to a two-way IBAN. In order to request this change it was necessary for me to discuss the other editor. The administrator repeatedly stated that the other editor was not responsible for my behavior, and that trying to convince them otherwise is not covered by
WP:BANEX. I was not claiming that the other editor was responsible for my behavior; I was asking that my IBAN be modified to two-way because the other editor was also at fault (and due to the admin's procedural errors). The administrator did not state that it was improper to discuss the other editor in the context of this request; the administrator did not follow
WP:ADMINACCT by answering my specific requests for clarification, instead the administrator repeatedly told me that the other editor was not responsible for my conduct, something I never claimed.
Kolya Butternut (
talk)
06:29, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Declined. There should be a meaningful chance of success, even if small, to do so, and I don't see a meaningful chance of success here. Yamla ( talk) 11:59, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Yamla, may I ask for policy clarification? Am I permitted to ask for a modification of an IBAN from one-way to two-way during an appeal? That is not clear to me from policy, and the administrator did not tell me not to ask that the other editor be banned.
Hypothetically, what would an Editor A do if they were subject to a one-way IBAN and an Editor B who they were not to interact with began harassing them? The WP:BANEX policy does not speak to that, but I assume Editor A would be permitted to discuss Editor B in a request for an administrator to impose a two-way IBAN. Where is the policy which addresses this? If Editor A would be permitted to discuss Editor B in this context, wouldn't I also be permitted to discuss the editor I was IBANNED from when asking for a ban modification?
Also, is there a way for me to comment at AN during my appeal? I thought I was clear, but I want to emphasize that the administrator's comments on my block are misrepresentations of what happened. I was not given a blanket instruction not to discuss the other editor's conduct, and I was not told not to ask for a ban on the other editor. The administrator may have intended to say those things, but they were not communicated. Kolya Butternut ( talk) 12:48, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
"insulting or casting aspersions upon other editors". I do not know that that is an accurate characterization of my behavior, and Wugapodes has not clearly addressed my questions. My understanding is that even if the accusations I made were accurate and supported by evidence, my behavior would still be considered as "casting aspersions" because I did not bring my complaint to a noticeboard fast enough. I feel, however, that my words were a final warning which did not require action pending what I anticipated would be Bradv's administrator action. Kolya Butternut ( talk) 17:19, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
Kolya Butternut, my unreserved apology for declining your unblock request earlier. I was very clearly mistaken to do so. Welcome back and I sincerely wish you much enjoyment with your future editing. -- Yamla ( talk) 20:57, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
Hi there. I supported your unblock, so welcome back. As advice moving forward, uless you want to get yourself reblocked sooner rather than later, try not being bold but rather seek consensus for your changes on the talkpages, regards. Govindaharihari ( talk) 18:04, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
Hi Kolya. I've asked this before but didn't get a response. But if possible, could you reply to my RFC on the Millennials talk page about modifying the lead? I know you've been in favor of this kind of idea before.-- CherokeeJack1 ( talk) 21:16, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
Here are some sources:
https://www.aarp.org/content/dam/aarp/ppi/2018/05/millennial-family-caregivers.pdf
https://consumerclarity.com/marketing-insights-delivered/millennial-marketing-insights/
https://www.mybusiness.com.au/human-resources/5800-millennials-v-gen-z-how-they-spend-save-and-work
-- CherokeeJack1 ( talk) 23:47, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
This is to let you know that I have posted a discussion about you at WP:ANI. The discussion may be found here. -- MelanieN ( talk) 18:23, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
I just want to say that I would ask to have a conversation with a mediator somewhere such as Discord before a decision is made. I don't find the message board format conducive to understanding. If an editor wants they can email me to set that up, and then let the community know if they think I can be expected to adhere to policy. Now that I've invited folks to email me I can step away from Wikipedia and ignore pings and everything. Kolya Butternut ( talk) 03:50, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
I’ve been following the different Generation-related articles for a while now and I see that there’s currently a conflict going on over at the Xennials article. I ran into the same issues with the editor on two different Generation articles [1] [2] where the user basically thinks that they own the Generation-related articles, is misrepresenting sources to push their non-neutral POV against reliable sources, is unwilling to compromise and tries to shut down any discussions on the talk pages until the other editors eventually relent and leave. Not sure what can be done about this user’s pattern of disruptive behavior on these articles. Someone963852 ( talk) 23:39, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
I have read your email, and looked at some of the things you mention. I'll try to tell you what I think when I have more time than now. It's fairly complicated, and a quick answer would be misleading. If I haven't got back to you within a couple of days please feel welcome to remind me. The editor who uses the pseudonym " JamesBWatson" ( talk) 15:52, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
When I run the search, the difference between 28k and 19k results is whether "The" is included in the phrase. FYI, I've found that sometimes editors will object very strongly about other editors editing their talk page comments if it's not for one of the reasons listed in WP:TPO.
Hi. If we had the right pictures, I would support going with pictures of dancing or laughing. I think the most efficient way forward would be to find a matching set, or possibly a few matching sets, and then launch an RfC for both articles, so it would only take one round of discussion to settle the issue finally (rather than ping-ponging back and forth). Unfortunately I don't have a lot of time to look right now. Last time, I searched Google images using filters to find public-domain images, then imported them to Commons so I could post them here. I'm happy to look at any pictures you find if you want a second opinion. If you want to take this on, you might create a new page in your userspace to be an image gallery (like User:Kolya Butternut/Man and Woman gallery or something), and after you've collected some options, drop a link at Talk:Man and Talk:Woman, so editors who are interested can watchlist your gallery page and use that talk page for discussion, and then narrow the choices down to some "finalists" for an RfC. Let me know if you need any help with anything. Leviv ich 04:06, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
Oh yeah... I just remembered the other reason I like to upload to Commons instead of Wikipedia :-) Aside from the import tools, they have more specific license templates. And, if there's a deletion issue, for my part I'd rather the editors there decide instead of getting involved in an XfD here (I get involved in enough of those as it is). I haven't uploaded a ton of photos, but I have imported from Pexels to Commons before without a problem (the current lead image at Woman is a Pexels import, for example). I moved the two Pexels photos in your gallery to commons, updated the links, and tagged the WP versions for speedy deletion as duplicates of the Commons version, and I posted at the FfD that I had done so, so that should take care of the issue, and my recommendation would be to send Pexels photos to Commons in the future since they seem to have a specific license template for it. Leviv ich 15:41, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Levivich, I think the photo I added of the woman in striped pants is comparable to the Man image, do you think we're ready for an RfC with a couple of these finalists? Talk:Woman/sandbox Kolya Butternut ( talk) 17:37, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading
File:Adult-artisan-equipment.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate
copyright tag, it may be deleted some time after the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{
PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{
self|CC-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}}
(to require that you be credited), or any tag
here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by MifterBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: Once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. -- MifterBot ( Talk • Contribs • Owner) 00:45, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading
File:Maracaibo Venezuelan Man.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate
copyright tag, it may be deleted some time after the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{
PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{
self|CC-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}}
(to require that you be credited), or any tag
here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by MifterBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: Once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. -- MifterBot ( Talk • Contribs • Owner) 01:00, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading
File:Adult-art-artisan.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate
copyright tag, it may be deleted some time after the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{
PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{
self|CC-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}}
(to require that you be credited), or any tag
here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by MifterBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: Once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. -- MifterBot ( Talk • Contribs • Owner) 01:00, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on File:Adult-art-artisan.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the file appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.
If the image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use it — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Whpq ( talk) 08:33, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Adult-art-artisan.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Whpq ( talk) 08:49, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Adult-art-artisan.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination.
This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot ( talk) 23:55, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
Please do not add defamatory content to Wikipedia, as you did to Candace Owens, especially if it involves living persons. Thank you. wumbolo ^^^ 22:48, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at Candace Owens shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in you being
blocked from editing—especially if you violate the
three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three
reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
Okay, this is my last message.
wumbolo
^^^
10:33, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
Hi, I just wanted to let you know that I cleaned up the formatting of your poll here: Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#The_Atlantic_quote. I didn't change any content; I just made the quotes more readable and assigned them A and B. I apologise if this was rude of me. 84percent ( talk) 05:09, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
Wrong venue. This should be moved to the article's talk page. wumbolo ^^^ 08:49, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
Seeking input from uninvolved editors. This was already discussed at the talk page and went nowhere. --Kolya Butternut (talk) 12:03, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
This is a courtesy notice that the case request for SashiRolls has been declined by the Arbitration Committee. For more information on why the case was declined, please see the link above. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 18:30, 2 May 2019 (UTC).
If a discussion goes off-topic (per the above subsection § How to use article talk pages), editors may hide it using the templates. My comments were not off-topic, and I object to the collapse. If there is a policy which justifies your collapse of my comments please let me know.{{ Collapse top}}
and{{ Collapse bottom}}
or similar templates—these templates should not be used by involved parties to end a discussion over the objections of other editors
repeated assumptions of bad faith and personal attacks, but you are continuing that behavior here. Please stop. Kolya Butternut ( talk) 14:37, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
Let's leave it at that. Kolya Butternut ( talk) 18:24, 12 June 2019 (UTC)I was blocked for calling an edit dishonest, which is apparently not allowed even if what you call "dishonest" really was demonstrably so. Oh well, not the first time I've been blocked for pointing out an inconvenient truth.
The clear evidence is here. If you have evidence for your "accurate" assessment, feel free add it below; otherwise you know what you can do...🌿 SashiRolls t · c 18:48, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
SashiRolls, I wish I had remembered to ask you this before arguing again, but are you able to understand 16th prose? I saw that you have studied Rabelais. I was researching the etymology of the word thornback in the sense of old-maids, and I found that "The word thornbacks was used to refer to old maids in Peter Anthony Motteux's 1694 English translation of François Rabelais' 16th century novels Gargantua and Pantagruel." I'm not sure if the meaning is related, but the word thornbacks is also used in Nashe's Lenten Stuff. Are you able to understand the use of thornbacks in Lenten Stuff? Kolya Butternut ( talk) 01:05, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
Re
this comment, "dishonest, prejudiced, and controlling
" is a
personal attack. Please read
WP:NPA and refrain from insulting other editors. -
SchroCat (
talk)
13:44, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
Regarding this, you clearly only showed up at this article you had never showed up at before because I was there. Here's a piece of advice: Take my talk page off your watchlist and keep me out of your thoughts. If I see anymore hounding from you, you will be taken to ANI and swiftly dealt with, just like all of my other stalkers. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 21:06, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
I think that this very thread is evidence of hounding tendencies and I showed up here on your talk page because I am an administrator and it is part of my job to try to defuse tensions between two otherwise productive editors. I have over 16,000 pages on my watchlist which I scan frequently and I have had many interactions with the other editor over the years. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 17:35, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
It's ironic that Flyer uses WP:HOUND, a guideline designed to prevent bullying, to instead bully others. Obviously Koyla seeing a single article on someone's talk page that is of interest to her is not what the hounding guideline means when it talks about antagonistically following another user around.
Flyer has also honed in on me, so I'm quite familiar with her
WP:WikiBullying. According to one word counting app, Flyer has left
about five pages worth of antagonistic posts on my own talk page, and amongst all that nastiness, you'll find that she has also incorrectly accused me of hounding. Luckily, after that spurious accusation,
a level-headed admin stepped in and noted that there was no indication
that I was doing anything wrong.
On her talk page, Flyer says that There is also a serious harassment issue on Wikipedia; see WP:Harassment. As some very well know, I have been stalked/harassed on Wikipedia a number of times.
I don't doubt that there are cases where Flyer has been subject to harassment. It's ironic, and sad, that she can't see that she also engages in it herself. (
talk page watcher)
WanderingWanda (
talk)
01:16, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
Wikipedia photo of Man is a Mallu guy. Twitter seems to have found him out too
Also, Jack Hadley will be on the mainpage on the 9th [20]. Sans image, sadly. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 13:54, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
Please use the article talk page at Michael Bloomberg to discuss your reasoning before reinstating content that's been challenged by a revert. I see that you have previously received a similar notice about the Discretionary Sanctions in effect on American Politics since 1932 SPECIFICO talk 20:35, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
There are two page sanctions in use, created by two different Admins. The "consensus required" is the more common, but some articles have the 24-hour BRD. In the case of Biden, the 1RR plus 24-hour BRD was added. SPECIFICO talk 23:47, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
You failed to observe the page restrictions at Joe Biden when you reinserted your text that had been reverted shortly before. Please undo and use talk. SPECIFICO talk 03:22, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
Hi Koyla. If possible, could you vote support/oppose on my RFC for changing the lead in the Millennials article?-- CherokeeJack1 ( talk) 21:19, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
Dear Kolya Butternut, thank you so for your words! I'm deeply honored. I'm afraid I cannot recommend anyone who can translate and I sadly cannot, but I can provide a number of sources, most of them in English. If you start an article in Icelandic, that would be just wonderful. I'll provide you with a list of online links and if you can usethem to expand on the basic outline, that would be great. Just a quick point-some of the older sources are a little out of date. That was a fun article to work on as I had to do a detective work to figure this mystery. It seems that Bram Stoker provided an early draft of Dracula to a Swedish novelist around about 1892, which served as the basis of the Swedish serialization in 1899-1900, which in its turn served as the Icelandic version in 1900-1901. Some of the earlier articles from 2017 were not aware of that-I constantly had to revise the article as I dug deeper into this mystery. A good place to start with Dracula by Bram Stoker The Mystery of The Early Editions by Simone Berni, x. Morrisville: Lulu, 2016. If you click on the link here: [25], it has a bit about the Icelandic version of Powers of Darkness. You may find these reviews from 2017 useful, through some of the information is now inaccurate about the origins of the book: [26], [27], and [28]. According to this link from February 2017 here [29], an Icelandic TV producer named Sigurjon Sighvatsson was planning to do a TV mini-series of Powers of Darkness, through I have not able to find out anything more about it. If you translate just a rough draft and if you make use of the material that I provided here, that would just be great. I always felt that people in Iceland should know more about this-it is that sadly that I do not speak Icelandic and therefore I had to disqualify myself for lack of linguistic competence.:(:(. Thank you so the kind words, which are much appreciated here, and I hope all is well. Cheers! -- A.S. Brown ( talk) 04:35, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
Your second revert here [31] [32] violates the 1RR Discretionary Sanction restriction on this article. The fact that you went to BLPN in the interim makes this appear all the worse. It shows that either 1) you understood that there was a BLP issue requiring advice or 2) that you simply were soliciting another editor to do the second revert. Please undo your second revert and, since you've raised the issue at BLPN, await community guidance. Otherwise, this sort of 2rr may get you blocked from editing. You are well aware that the content you keep removing is reliably sourced to Associated Press. Pinging Admin @ Wugapodes: who has been helping with this page. SPECIFICO talk 18:57, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
For the sake of completeness, Kolya Butternut, your second edit also violated the 24-hour BRD page restriction on this article. SPECIFICO talk 19:04, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
either 1) you understood that there was a BLP issue requiring advice or 2) that you simply were soliciting another editor to do the second revertare inappropriate and contribute to making the editing environment unwelcoming. Per your recent logged warning and associated discussion, you should not be commenting on editors this way. Given the way it is phrased, I am also going to assume good faith that you thought user talk pages were not covered by this warning. They are. Continuing to engage in battleground behavior anywhere on the project will likely result in interaction bans or topic bans. — Wug· a·po·des 19:44, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
"Earlier this month Reade filed a police report saying she was assaulted in 1993 in order to give herself safety from threats she has received. A record reviewed by AP didn't mention Biden by name. NPR has reported, however, that a record does name Biden and has filed a Freedom of Information Act request for the full report."[40] So, the AP reviewed one record which didn't name Biden, and NPR reviewed another record which did name Biden, therefore, Biden was named to police. Kolya Butternut ( talk) 09:04, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
You wrote something here about me violating a sanction. What did you mean by that? I am under no BLP or American Politics sanctions. A false unsupported statement is a personal attack and you can be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Previously, you insinuated I had been canvassing here. I am asking you to strike the "sanctions" smear at BLPN and stop making false accusations about me or other editors. @ Wugapodes: SPECIFICO talk 23:25, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
You contacted me by email, but showed no reason that the matter would need to be handled privately. If you would like to discuss that matter, please contact me on-wiki, not via backchannels. Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:17, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
If an edit you make is reverted you must discuss on the talk page and wait 24 hours before reinstating your edit. - MrX 🖋 15:35, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the
guide to appealing blocks (specifically
this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{
unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}
. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard I suggest you use the
arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (
by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page.
Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."
The following sanction now applies to you:
You are banned from interacting with SPECIFICO per the interaction ban policy for 1 month.
You have been sanctioned for battleground conduct, repeatedly casting aspersions, and making accusations of bad faith editing such as Special:Diff/954305836/954419847, Special:Diff/955950634, and Special:Diff/956096968 in relation to edits on the article Joe Biden.
This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2#Final decision and, if applicable, the procedure described at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.
You may appeal this sanction using the process described here. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. — Wug· a·po·des 00:23, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
Overturned per AN discussion — Wug· a·po·des 20:54, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the
guide to appealing blocks (specifically
this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{
unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}
. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard I suggest you use the
arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily.
Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."
You were warned here, here, and here to focus on your own conduct in your appeal (not the person who you were banned from interacting with) and instead you focused on the other editor's conduct here, clarified that you were in fact commenting on the other editor's conduct and not your own here, and continued to argue for a ban on the editor here after being told not to. — Wug· a·po·des 05:16, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
Kolya Butternut ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Please copy my appeal to the
administrators' noticeboard. I am appealing the block
[43] which I received for "repeatedly violating [my] interaction ban after warnings"
. The cited violations occurred while I was appealing and asking for clarification on the talk page of the administrator who imposed the IBAN.
[44] In my appeal and clarification requests I had repeatedly asked that my IBAN be modified from a one-way IBAN to a two-way IBAN. In order to request this change it was necessary for me to discuss the other editor. The administrator repeatedly stated that the other editor was not responsible for my behavior, and that trying to convince them otherwise is not covered by
WP:BANEX. I was not claiming that the other editor was responsible for my behavior; I was asking that my IBAN be modified to two-way because the other editor was also at fault (and due to the admin's procedural errors). The administrator did not state that it was improper to discuss the other editor in the context of this request; the administrator did not follow
WP:ADMINACCT by answering my specific requests for clarification, instead the administrator repeatedly told me that the other editor was not responsible for my conduct, something I never claimed.
Kolya Butternut (
talk)
06:29, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Declined. There should be a meaningful chance of success, even if small, to do so, and I don't see a meaningful chance of success here. Yamla ( talk) 11:59, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Yamla, may I ask for policy clarification? Am I permitted to ask for a modification of an IBAN from one-way to two-way during an appeal? That is not clear to me from policy, and the administrator did not tell me not to ask that the other editor be banned.
Hypothetically, what would an Editor A do if they were subject to a one-way IBAN and an Editor B who they were not to interact with began harassing them? The WP:BANEX policy does not speak to that, but I assume Editor A would be permitted to discuss Editor B in a request for an administrator to impose a two-way IBAN. Where is the policy which addresses this? If Editor A would be permitted to discuss Editor B in this context, wouldn't I also be permitted to discuss the editor I was IBANNED from when asking for a ban modification?
Also, is there a way for me to comment at AN during my appeal? I thought I was clear, but I want to emphasize that the administrator's comments on my block are misrepresentations of what happened. I was not given a blanket instruction not to discuss the other editor's conduct, and I was not told not to ask for a ban on the other editor. The administrator may have intended to say those things, but they were not communicated. Kolya Butternut ( talk) 12:48, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
"insulting or casting aspersions upon other editors". I do not know that that is an accurate characterization of my behavior, and Wugapodes has not clearly addressed my questions. My understanding is that even if the accusations I made were accurate and supported by evidence, my behavior would still be considered as "casting aspersions" because I did not bring my complaint to a noticeboard fast enough. I feel, however, that my words were a final warning which did not require action pending what I anticipated would be Bradv's administrator action. Kolya Butternut ( talk) 17:19, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
Kolya Butternut, my unreserved apology for declining your unblock request earlier. I was very clearly mistaken to do so. Welcome back and I sincerely wish you much enjoyment with your future editing. -- Yamla ( talk) 20:57, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
Hi there. I supported your unblock, so welcome back. As advice moving forward, uless you want to get yourself reblocked sooner rather than later, try not being bold but rather seek consensus for your changes on the talkpages, regards. Govindaharihari ( talk) 18:04, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
Hi Kolya. I've asked this before but didn't get a response. But if possible, could you reply to my RFC on the Millennials talk page about modifying the lead? I know you've been in favor of this kind of idea before.-- CherokeeJack1 ( talk) 21:16, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
Here are some sources:
https://www.aarp.org/content/dam/aarp/ppi/2018/05/millennial-family-caregivers.pdf
https://consumerclarity.com/marketing-insights-delivered/millennial-marketing-insights/
https://www.mybusiness.com.au/human-resources/5800-millennials-v-gen-z-how-they-spend-save-and-work
-- CherokeeJack1 ( talk) 23:47, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
This is to let you know that I have posted a discussion about you at WP:ANI. The discussion may be found here. -- MelanieN ( talk) 18:23, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
I just want to say that I would ask to have a conversation with a mediator somewhere such as Discord before a decision is made. I don't find the message board format conducive to understanding. If an editor wants they can email me to set that up, and then let the community know if they think I can be expected to adhere to policy. Now that I've invited folks to email me I can step away from Wikipedia and ignore pings and everything. Kolya Butternut ( talk) 03:50, 26 May 2020 (UTC)