User talk:ButterSlipper: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 22:48, 3 September 2021 editGwennie-nyan (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers3,402 edits →September 2021 2: ReplyTag: Reply ← Previous edit		Revision as of 01:44, 5 September 2021 edit undoButterSlipper (talk \| contribs)279 edits Apology.Next edit →
Line 71:		Line 71:
	*This is a remarkable amount of vituperation for less than a week on Misplaced Pages. '''<span style="font-family: Arial;">] <small>]</small></span>''' 12:32, 2 September 2021 (UTC)		*This is a remarkable amount of vituperation for less than a week on Misplaced Pages. '''<span style="font-family: Arial;">] <small>]</small></span>''' 12:32, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
	*:<small>(<span style="color:#555;">Non-administrator comment</span>)</small> As an uninvolved community member who stumbled upon this, I'm in total support of your actions in this instance, {{u\|Acroterion}}. ]｟] ]｠ 22:48, 3 September 2021 (UTC)		*:<small>(<span style="color:#555;">Non-administrator comment</span>)</small> As an uninvolved community member who stumbled upon this, I'm in total support of your actions in this instance, {{u\|Acroterion}}. ]｟] ]｠ 22:48, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
			*: Hey {{reply to\|Acroterion\|HighInBC}} The time between when ] had instituted the block and now has instigated a change of heart. I caught up again on some of ]. I now perfectly see where you're coming from and from your pov I'm sure it seems like a vile liar and you would not be wrong for assuming that because my behaviour was repugnant, but I come in good-faith and truly and deeply apologise for the wrongdoings of my actions. ] was right on the bullseye with me being too demanding in the speed of other editors. I was rash and frustrated at the time with the controversial discussions. I have disappointed myself. Misplaced Pages is not an instant-text messenger app, and for me to demand swiftness is inappropriate. ] had also rightfully called me out for hostility with my terms and I personally admit my language was a plethora of loaded flames I squawked needlessly.

			:: I would like to make clear some points that I misunderstand though. ] in their warning said that I had engaged in personal attacks and I was left dazed. There was not really a specific example given and I would've liked for some elaboration. Of course this isn't a policy or demand but if the same things were to happen again I would like a specific example of when the violation I had committed occurred because I had no time to discuss the allegations and I expect more reason referred to prior to the block for a defamatory allegation like personal attacks. Especially when I view personal attacks as a heinous and depraved action I wholly oppose. This request is obviously a privilege though, I just do not understand why you didn't give the specific examples of inappropriate behaviour.

			:: Another misunderstanding I have is with the allegations of personal attacks by ]. In the cited examples given, there are no personal attacks. If desired, I can go through and thoroughly review each and every one but I will only be reviewing the first two for the sake of brevity. The examples cited only contain attacks of '''arguments''' and/or '''edits'''. "This is a partisan and grotesque silencing of factual criticism. Revert this '''edit''' immediately."<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Neutrality&diff=prev&oldid=1041743483&diffmode=source</ref> is the attack I make on the '''edit''' done by ] that you cited as the first example of a '''personal assault'''. I can see "you made no effort to argue for any inaccuracies in the valid critiques from the Grayzone articles" being a personal objurgation but I had only stated that ] did not try to explain his reasoning further which was misinformed but still civil to claim because he did not (to my knowledge at the time which was incorrect) make a new section in the talk page to justify his edit. The second citation given, which you state was also notified to be a personal attack by ], I believe to be not a personal aggression. I did reply to this accusation and clarified how I was attacking purely the argument.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:ButterSlipper&oldid=1041865278</ref> The rest of the citations are more or less the same to these ones but if you need me to I can provide further clarity on my line of thinking. In summary, attacks of the argument or claims about user's actions were misconstrued as personal attacks but if you have opposing views to my explanation please notify me.

			:: I was also accused of bad-faith by ] which I know for a fact I did not do. The question provided<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Firefangledfeathers&oldid=1041908271</ref> does seem indeed fishy and disingenuous at first glance and accidentally I did not explain enough which I am sorry for. I can assure you I was only asking about the relationship between the two users because ] had invited ] to collaborate on a page not too long ago<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Neutrality&diff=prev&oldid=1023228812</ref> and for some reason, ] had known about my accidental violations of Misplaced Pages's guidelines I had committed on ]'s talk page<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Neutrality&oldid=1041892505</ref> which I found strange for people who are not friends/had a relationship etc. From an outsider's view, it seems like I was questioning the relationship between the two users to draw a line on why ] had (thankfully) reverted my horrible edits but I devoutly respect ] for being such a welcoming and respectful editor I highly appreciate and the question I asked came in good-faith curiosity. ] had then formally declared that they have no ties outside of working on the Misplaced Pages.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Firefangledfeathers&oldid=1041950978</ref>

			:: While ] was true about the lack of need for hostile language, they had misinterpreted my motivation for the use of it. I did not call ]'s edits/arguments irrational, disgraceful, prejudice, asinine, lazy and absurd or any other aggressive vocabulary just because ]'s views had opposed mine, but because the edits/arguments were indeed disgraceful, prejudice etc. For example, when I call ]'s claims "asinine", I had done so because " also contradicts and ignores how I substantiated the second website's reasonability"<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Adrian_Zenz&diff=prev&oldid=1041872705</ref> which does make the claim asinine, although now with more thinking this is immature flaming. I had reason to use those words but I disagree with most of what I said now ].

			:: I make this message because I want to cleanse my conscious and hopefully have controversies discuss and revolved. I also do not want this dispute to seem like I loathe the named users or you two admins because a lot of you are great contributors to Misplaced Pages and have taught me so much. I'm unfathomably sorry if we've gotten on a rocky boat or if my character is seen as having "over-the-top vitriol".<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Neutrality&diff=prev&oldid=1041868880</ref> The block conducted did in fact reduce disruption on Misplaced Pages and greatly informed me. I wish everybody a good day and you guys are level-headed and understanding :) ] (]) 01:44, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Revision as of 01:44, 5 September 2021

HEY ButterSlipper (talk) 10:15, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

ButterSlipper, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi ButterSlipper! Thanks for contributing to Misplaced Pages.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Misplaced Pages and get help from experienced editors like Lectonar (talk).

Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:01, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

August 2021

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 Misplaced Pages – 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)

Your question at Talk:Adrian Zenz

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 Misplaced Pages. It could also be construed as a pattern of personal aspersions. Please read WP:CIVIL, one of Misplaced Pages's policies. Schazjmd (talk) 23:31, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to go on to my talk page and kindly explain Schazjmd but I don't understand how my comment on Adrian Zenz's talk page was a personal aggression or violation of WP:CIVIL. I had stated that the reverting was irrational, disgraceful and prejudice correctly and did not go on to assume the editor Neutrality was any of those words. Neutrality is clearly just a misinformed editor and I had only wanted to defame their edits. My second comment about "your obscene falsehoods" was highly charged and aggressive, I agree, but I was just stating the facts and staying civil. The truth needs to be said and I had never claimed they were dumb or ignorant or anything else personally offensive for claiming those falsehoods.

"Stated simply, editors should always treat each other with consideration and respect. They should focus on improving the encyclopedia while maintaining a pleasant editing environment by behaving politely, calmly and reasonably, even during heated debates." My comments were a tiny bit vicious but not personal, false or had violated any Misplaced Pages rules. I "treat with consideration and respect" even when their statements were slanderous. I want to collaborate with Neutrality and I despise this fruitless arguing.

If there's anything else I am not aware about that I had done and violated Misplaced Pages's guidelines, could you please explain?

Talk page guidelines

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)

Hi Firefangledfeathers. Sorry for accidentally referring you to Neutrality on the edit page. Anyways, could you care to explain where it says this is within reason or valid (deleting entire threads for expunging errors)? I read the article but still do not understand. This act, for me at least, seems futile and bad faith. Thanks. ButterSlipper (talk) 05:50, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

No worries. The relevant parts are WP:OWNTALK, part of the talk page guidelines, or WP:BLANKING, part of the user page guidelines. Both make it clear that users can remove most posts from their own talk pages. Yes, it is frustrating when others won't engage with you. Perhaps ending the engagement here will actually be helpful in the long run? There's also WP:NOBAN, still part of the user page guideline, which suggests respecting other editors' wishes and leaving their talk page alone when asked. I can get more specific with quotes but the sections linked are fairly short. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 04:45, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the notice. Will do. ButterSlipper (talk) 05:50, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

September 2021

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)

Hi Acroterion. Could you please name the personal attack(s) I have committed? I am not aware of any that I have done and I assiduously phrase my replies to not be personal so this is unexpected to me. Thanks. ButterSlipper (talk) 05:49, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Don’t be coy. Your entire course of conduct toward Neutrality has been overtly hostile, as you know very well. Since you continued after a direct warning from me, I’ve blocked you. Your conduct toward everybody else you’ve encountered has been less than exemplary as well. If this recurs, the next block may be indefinite. Acroterion (talk) 11:10, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Notice

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 Misplaced Pages's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Template:Z33 Acroterion (talk) 05:16, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

September 2021

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 60 hours for making personal attacks towards other editors. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Acroterion (talk) 11:06, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages 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. Please showcase the legitimate personal attacks or violations of Misplaced Pages's standards I had exercised or undo this block. I only want to support the Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages:What Misplaced Pages is not#Misplaced Pages is not a battleground. Simply put you need to handle people disagreeing with you without making it personal. HighInBC 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.

<ec>Blocking admin notes to save everybody reviewing some time:
Personal attacks prior to warning:
- , (for which you were warned by another editor, but carried on), , , ,
- This after my warning, which I removed as an abuse of an article talkpage for personal attacks: ,and which is the proximate cause for your block.
- And this assumption of bad faith: , along with demands in various locations that other editors cater to your expectations for speedy responses,
This is a remarkable amount of vituperation for less than a week on Misplaced Pages. Acroterion (talk) 12:32, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
(Non-administrator comment) As an uninvolved community member who stumbled upon this, I'm in total support of your actions in this instance, Acroterion. ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 22:48, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Hey @Acroterion and HighInBC: The time between when Acroterion had instituted the block and now has instigated a change of heart. I caught up again on some of Misplaced Pages's suggestions. I now perfectly see where you're coming from and from your pov I'm sure it seems like a vile liar and you would not be wrong for assuming that because my behaviour was repugnant, but I come in good-faith and truly and deeply apologise for the wrongdoings of my actions. Acroterion was right on the bullseye with me being too demanding in the speed of other editors. I was rash and frustrated at the time with the controversial discussions. I have disappointed myself. Misplaced Pages is not an instant-text messenger app, and for me to demand swiftness is inappropriate. HighInBC had also rightfully called me out for hostility with my terms and I personally admit my language was a plethora of loaded flames I squawked needlessly.

I would like to make clear some points that I misunderstand though. Acroterion in their warning said that I had engaged in personal attacks and I was left dazed. There was not really a specific example given and I would've liked for some elaboration. Of course this isn't a policy or demand but if the same things were to happen again I would like a specific example of when the violation I had committed occurred because I had no time to discuss the allegations and I expect more reason referred to prior to the block for a defamatory allegation like personal attacks. Especially when I view personal attacks as a heinous and depraved action I wholly oppose. This request is obviously a privilege though, I just do not understand why you didn't give the specific examples of inappropriate behaviour.

Another misunderstanding I have is with the allegations of personal attacks by Acroterion. In the cited examples given, there are no personal attacks. If desired, I can go through and thoroughly review each and every one but I will only be reviewing the first two for the sake of brevity. The examples cited only contain attacks of arguments and/or edits. "This is a partisan and grotesque silencing of factual criticism. Revert this edit immediately." is the attack I make on the edit done by Neutrality that you cited as the first example of a personal assault. I can see "you made no effort to argue for any inaccuracies in the valid critiques from the Grayzone articles" being a personal objurgation but I had only stated that Neutrality did not try to explain his reasoning further which was misinformed but still civil to claim because he did not (to my knowledge at the time which was incorrect) make a new section in the talk page to justify his edit. The second citation given, which you state was also notified to be a personal attack by Schazjmd, I believe to be not a personal aggression. I did reply to this accusation and clarified how I was attacking purely the argument. The rest of the citations are more or less the same to these ones but if you need me to I can provide further clarity on my line of thinking. In summary, attacks of the argument or claims about user's actions were misconstrued as personal attacks but if you have opposing views to my explanation please notify me.

I was also accused of bad-faith by Acroterion which I know for a fact I did not do. The question provided does seem indeed fishy and disingenuous at first glance and accidentally I did not explain enough which I am sorry for. I can assure you I was only asking about the relationship between the two users because Firefangledfeathers had invited Neutrality to collaborate on a page not too long ago and for some reason, Firefangledfeathers had known about my accidental violations of Misplaced Pages's guidelines I had committed on Neutrality's talk page which I found strange for people who are not friends/had a relationship etc. From an outsider's view, it seems like I was questioning the relationship between the two users to draw a line on why Firefangledfeathers had (thankfully) reverted my horrible edits but I devoutly respect Firefangledfeathers for being such a welcoming and respectful editor I highly appreciate and the question I asked came in good-faith curiosity. Firefangledfeathers had then formally declared that they have no ties outside of working on the Misplaced Pages.

While HighInBC was true about the lack of need for hostile language, they had misinterpreted my motivation for the use of it. I did not call Neutrality's edits/arguments irrational, disgraceful, prejudice, asinine, lazy and absurd or any other aggressive vocabulary just because Neutrality's views had opposed mine, but because the edits/arguments were indeed disgraceful, prejudice etc. For example, when I call Neutrality's claims "asinine", I had done so because " also contradicts and ignores how I substantiated the second website's reasonability" which does make the claim asinine, although now with more thinking this is immature flaming. I had reason to use those words but I disagree with most of what I said now HighInBC.

I make this message because I want to cleanse my conscious and hopefully have controversies discuss and revolved. I also do not want this dispute to seem like I loathe the named users or you two admins because a lot of you are great contributors to Misplaced Pages and have taught me so much. I'm unfathomably sorry if we've gotten on a rocky boat or if my character is seen as having "over-the-top vitriol". The block conducted did in fact reduce disruption on Misplaced Pages and greatly informed me. I wish everybody a good day and you guys are level-headed and understanding :) ButterSlipper (talk) 01:44, 5 September 2021 (UTC)