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 4 | Archive 5 |
The following sanction now applies to you:
You have been topic-banned from any pages or discussions related to 2020 United States presidential election, candidates, issues and events, broadly construed for a period of six months
You have been sanctioned for refusal to listen and accept feedback/consensus, and for escalatory and copious rhetoric, which has disrupted editing and admining in this topic area; example, discussions here, here, here, here and here.
This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2#Final decision and, if applicable, the procedure described at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.
You may appeal this sanction using the process described here. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. Abecedare ( talk) 22:02, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
This edit seems unwise to me. I would like to avoid seeing more editors banned or blocked out of editing in the topic area concerned, so I would suggest trying a less WP:BAIT-ey approach in future. Regards. Newimpartial ( talk) 13:59, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
Please use the article talk page and dispute resolution channels and do not keep inserting UNDUE negative content in the lead. You risk sanctions. SPECIFICO talk 02:50, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
I will add here that the text in the lead was not actually longstanding. While it was apparently first added on April 5th, [3] it had not been stable. Kolya Butternut ( talk) 22:22, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
I was very disappointed to see that you had added a photo again where I had advised you how important it is to add a source and a name to the caption, but that you did not do anyway. Don't really know how you can feel it's constructive to challenge me like that. It's not. -- SergeWoodzing ( talk) 22:04, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
A drag queen is a person, usually male, who uses drag clothing and makeup to imitate and often exaggerate female gender signifiers and gender roles for entertainment purposes.Drag king even states that the
term drag king is sometimes used in a broader sense, to include female-bodied people who dress in traditionally masculine clothing for other reasons.
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in (a) GamerGate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
Please see the Arcom decision at the following link for relevant principles and standards of behavior. /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate#Final_decision SPECIFICO talk 17:20, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.
Seraphimblade
Talk to me
21:26, 1 September 2020 (UTC)A woman, especially a performer, who dresses as a man. [10] The article also explains that drag kings are not necessarily women. Kolya Butternut ( talk) 02:05, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
There is an Arbitration Enforcement proceding concerning you at WP:AE. SPECIFICO talk 20:02, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
SPECIFICO, please do not ever refer to me as "its" again. I take such language as a transphobic personal attack. Kolya Butternut (talk) 15:41, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[12] Kolya Butternut ( talk) 00:26, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
- Let me know if that happens again. -- Floquenbeam ( talk) 00:55, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
- I feel that his AE statement was it happening again. Isn't my past statement to him enough evidence for me to cite WP:CIVILITY 2. (d) lying, along with all the other false statements? Kolya Butternut ( talk) 00:58, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
- I understand, but for myself, prefer to leave a clear final warning first (which I've done) rather than block after an hour's discussion, and a fix and apology. You might find another admin who thinks differently. -- Floquenbeam ( talk) 01:01, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
- I appreciate it when admins aren't trigger-happy. You haven't seen what I've seen yet. Kolya Butternut ( talk) 01:05, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
- While I have no intention of participating in the AE discussion, I wanted to point out that the "mansplaining" accusation, which SPECIFICO made here and has not retracted, strikes me as a potentially serious violation. Newimpartial ( talk) 01:09, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
@ Floquenbeam: can I ask you about the DeJoy thing? I don't understand my precise sanction. Obviously I hear how he's covered in the news, but I don't think he's actually in the executive administration. The campaign finance scandal concerns the years 2000 to 2014. [13] I'm not trying to debate my way out of this, I just want to understand things precisely. Kolya Butternut ( talk) 02:19, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
Wugapodes, regardless of whatever else we disagreed about, you were right that I hadn't understood WP:ASPERSIONS. After AE I skimmed our discussion and noticed that. Kolya Butternut ( talk) 18:19, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
While you are free to introduce new arguments and alternative article text sources and content, you should not -- per TPG -- be changing the header of a section that has the limited subject and purpose established by its original poster. Please restore the talk page header that was about the apology "Grace" quoted in her account of the date to Babe.net and pursue any suggestions you have in that section, a subsection of your own captioning, or a separate new section that you may establish. It is not OK to edit war a simple descriptive section header. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 15:52, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
For context, SPECIFICO is banned from my talk page for intentionally misgendering people, including me, by calling us "it" despite our protests.
[20] He lied about it by feigning ignorance.
[21] We can see by this comment, for example, that he is very well informed: Your repeated references to @Steeletrap: with the masculine pronoun constitute a personal attack and are unacceptable on Wikipedia. You are well aware from past discussions that Steeletrap is a woman. Moreover, as I believe that she has stated to you her particular sensitivity to being denigrated for her transgender status. I have long been concerned about gender bias within libertarian community and I must also tell you that I and thousands of others within the movement consider any misogynist or anti-transgender slur to be personally offensive. Please strike your references to Steeletrap in the masculine gender and replace with the feminine forms. SPECIFICO talk 15:11, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
[22]
Kolya Butternut (
talk)
17:25, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
Contributing to the confusion |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
The disputed longstanding stable text was Ansari has been criticized for not directly apologizing for his alleged behavior.
Part of the confusion was that it was not clear that the criticism was specifically about Ansari's statements in his Netlix special Aziz Ansari:Right Now, regardless of whether he had apologized in other contexts. On the talk page I commented in part: Rolling Stone's summary of the criticism from the
Vox piece cited, and others: "Others, however, pointed out that Ansari acknowledged, but didn’t directly apologize for, his alleged behavior.
[23]
[24] I explained this again in my comment in the !voting section (scroll down past where I accidentally cut an editor's name out):
[25] Editors appear to have voted to remove the line about not directly apologizing because they felt he had indeed directly apologized; they did not seem to understand that the line was limited to Ansari's comments in his special.
Kolya Butternut (
talk)
22:55, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
I have closed your report without action. You can read why I did in my comment at the SPI. Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 21:59, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
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 4 | Archive 5 |
The following sanction now applies to you:
You have been topic-banned from any pages or discussions related to 2020 United States presidential election, candidates, issues and events, broadly construed for a period of six months
You have been sanctioned for refusal to listen and accept feedback/consensus, and for escalatory and copious rhetoric, which has disrupted editing and admining in this topic area; example, discussions here, here, here, here and here.
This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2#Final decision and, if applicable, the procedure described at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.
You may appeal this sanction using the process described here. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. Abecedare ( talk) 22:02, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
This edit seems unwise to me. I would like to avoid seeing more editors banned or blocked out of editing in the topic area concerned, so I would suggest trying a less WP:BAIT-ey approach in future. Regards. Newimpartial ( talk) 13:59, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
Please use the article talk page and dispute resolution channels and do not keep inserting UNDUE negative content in the lead. You risk sanctions. SPECIFICO talk 02:50, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
I will add here that the text in the lead was not actually longstanding. While it was apparently first added on April 5th, [3] it had not been stable. Kolya Butternut ( talk) 22:22, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
I was very disappointed to see that you had added a photo again where I had advised you how important it is to add a source and a name to the caption, but that you did not do anyway. Don't really know how you can feel it's constructive to challenge me like that. It's not. -- SergeWoodzing ( talk) 22:04, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
A drag queen is a person, usually male, who uses drag clothing and makeup to imitate and often exaggerate female gender signifiers and gender roles for entertainment purposes.Drag king even states that the
term drag king is sometimes used in a broader sense, to include female-bodied people who dress in traditionally masculine clothing for other reasons.
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in (a) GamerGate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
Please see the Arcom decision at the following link for relevant principles and standards of behavior. /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate#Final_decision SPECIFICO talk 17:20, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.
Seraphimblade
Talk to me
21:26, 1 September 2020 (UTC)A woman, especially a performer, who dresses as a man. [10] The article also explains that drag kings are not necessarily women. Kolya Butternut ( talk) 02:05, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
There is an Arbitration Enforcement proceding concerning you at WP:AE. SPECIFICO talk 20:02, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
SPECIFICO, please do not ever refer to me as "its" again. I take such language as a transphobic personal attack. Kolya Butternut (talk) 15:41, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[12] Kolya Butternut ( talk) 00:26, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
- Let me know if that happens again. -- Floquenbeam ( talk) 00:55, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
- I feel that his AE statement was it happening again. Isn't my past statement to him enough evidence for me to cite WP:CIVILITY 2. (d) lying, along with all the other false statements? Kolya Butternut ( talk) 00:58, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
- I understand, but for myself, prefer to leave a clear final warning first (which I've done) rather than block after an hour's discussion, and a fix and apology. You might find another admin who thinks differently. -- Floquenbeam ( talk) 01:01, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
- I appreciate it when admins aren't trigger-happy. You haven't seen what I've seen yet. Kolya Butternut ( talk) 01:05, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
- While I have no intention of participating in the AE discussion, I wanted to point out that the "mansplaining" accusation, which SPECIFICO made here and has not retracted, strikes me as a potentially serious violation. Newimpartial ( talk) 01:09, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
@ Floquenbeam: can I ask you about the DeJoy thing? I don't understand my precise sanction. Obviously I hear how he's covered in the news, but I don't think he's actually in the executive administration. The campaign finance scandal concerns the years 2000 to 2014. [13] I'm not trying to debate my way out of this, I just want to understand things precisely. Kolya Butternut ( talk) 02:19, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
Wugapodes, regardless of whatever else we disagreed about, you were right that I hadn't understood WP:ASPERSIONS. After AE I skimmed our discussion and noticed that. Kolya Butternut ( talk) 18:19, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
While you are free to introduce new arguments and alternative article text sources and content, you should not -- per TPG -- be changing the header of a section that has the limited subject and purpose established by its original poster. Please restore the talk page header that was about the apology "Grace" quoted in her account of the date to Babe.net and pursue any suggestions you have in that section, a subsection of your own captioning, or a separate new section that you may establish. It is not OK to edit war a simple descriptive section header. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 15:52, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
For context, SPECIFICO is banned from my talk page for intentionally misgendering people, including me, by calling us "it" despite our protests.
[20] He lied about it by feigning ignorance.
[21] We can see by this comment, for example, that he is very well informed: Your repeated references to @Steeletrap: with the masculine pronoun constitute a personal attack and are unacceptable on Wikipedia. You are well aware from past discussions that Steeletrap is a woman. Moreover, as I believe that she has stated to you her particular sensitivity to being denigrated for her transgender status. I have long been concerned about gender bias within libertarian community and I must also tell you that I and thousands of others within the movement consider any misogynist or anti-transgender slur to be personally offensive. Please strike your references to Steeletrap in the masculine gender and replace with the feminine forms. SPECIFICO talk 15:11, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
[22]
Kolya Butternut (
talk)
17:25, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
Contributing to the confusion |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
The disputed longstanding stable text was Ansari has been criticized for not directly apologizing for his alleged behavior.
Part of the confusion was that it was not clear that the criticism was specifically about Ansari's statements in his Netlix special Aziz Ansari:Right Now, regardless of whether he had apologized in other contexts. On the talk page I commented in part: Rolling Stone's summary of the criticism from the
Vox piece cited, and others: "Others, however, pointed out that Ansari acknowledged, but didn’t directly apologize for, his alleged behavior.
[23]
[24] I explained this again in my comment in the !voting section (scroll down past where I accidentally cut an editor's name out):
[25] Editors appear to have voted to remove the line about not directly apologizing because they felt he had indeed directly apologized; they did not seem to understand that the line was limited to Ansari's comments in his special.
Kolya Butternut (
talk)
22:55, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
I have closed your report without action. You can read why I did in my comment at the SPI. Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 21:59, 6 October 2020 (UTC)