Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:54, 1 December 2020

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

A belated welcome!

Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Misplaced Pages, Kolya Butternut. I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Misplaced Pages:

• Introduction
• The five pillars of Misplaced Pages
• Contributing to Misplaced Pages
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• How to write a great article
• Editor's index to Misplaced Pages

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page, consult Misplaced Pages:Questions, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there.

Again, welcome! Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 13:26, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction

The following sanction now applies to you:

An indefinite interaction ban from interacting with SPECIFICO

You have been sanctioned for the reasons provided in response to this arbitration enforcement request.

This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate#Final decision and, if applicable, the procedure described at Misplaced Pages: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. Seraphimblade 11:56, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Seraphimblade, am I permitted to discuss my case with an administrator and ask them for help filing an appeal? Kolya Butternut (talk) 01:33, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

My first choice would be to ask you to understand my experience and to help me prove yourself wrong, which you could either see as an edifying exercise or an obnoxious request, or both? Kolya Butternut (talk) 04:16, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure what you're driving at here, but yes, you are permitted to appeal the sanction. Seraphimblade 05:09, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

(ec) Kolya Butternut, my rough count is that 9 or 10 admins participated in the admin portion of this complaint's discussion. I think taking the stance of proving their decision wrong is digging yourself into a deeper hole. The advised approach at this point is to prove that this ban is unnecessary by following it scrupulously. Then, in 6-12 months, appeal it if you feel strongly about it. But an Interaction ban is actually trying to protect you from conduct that could lead to a block or a topic ban so there really is no advantage to getting rid of one until it really serves no purpose any more.

A quick appeal, within a day or two of the I-Ban being imposed, will be shot down fast. Read the room: Admins are tired of seeing interpersonal disruption. My advice is to adjust your editing and keep your distance. And don't think about filing complaints for perceived I-ban violations or it will boomerang back at you. Admins want both of you to stop paying attention to each other completely. Liz 05:10, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Seraphimblade, I understand I can appeal the sanction; I am asking if I can get an administrator's help with that. For instance, can I discuss the evidence with an administrator and would they be permitted to make a statement in the result section of the AE request? Ideally I would hope that you would argue my case for me and avoid a noticeboard, if that makes sense. Mostly I'm concerned you wouldn't want to spend the time on it. I would like to work with you rather than against you. As it is now, I do not see that I am responsible for the disruption, but if you were to see everything from my perspective you may be able to point out where I did something clearly wrong and avoidable. If I escalate this to a noticeboard appeal and I have no one else who understands what happened it is likely to hurt me further, but it's the right thing to do. I have been angry with you but it doesn't feel good to let my ego stay involved and I hope you can let your guard down too.

Liz, I'm drawn to editing here because I care about the truth. In articles we are limited to the truth of what the RS say, but if we are to be accurate in our articles I think we want to strive for a culture of openness and honesty among editors, rather than strategizing and politicking. I understand that the structure of our conduct noticeboards is not set up for complicated long-term behavioral problems, and that bringing those cases to that forum has had disruptive consequences. That is why I am asking an administrator to try to understand what happened from my perspective. If I had been able to communicate my experience earlier it could have saved the wider community from the headache. Kolya Butternut (talk) 05:56, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

If you appeal, anyone who wishes to make a statement at the appeal is permitted to do so, but you may not solicit anyone to do that. Except for actually making an appeal and as necessary to make that appeal, you are not permitted to discuss anything regarding SPECIFICO anywhere on Misplaced Pages, and will be blocked for violating the ban if you do so. Seraphimblade 14:39, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Seraphimblade, I'll try to break down the questions:

1. Is discussion through Misplaced Pages email ok?
2. Am I permitted to neutrally ask an uninvolved party to investigate the case? (Or is it not possible to neutrally ask for help, because I am obviously asking for help for my side?)
3. If yes, would that person then be permitted to make a statement?
4. Would you be permitted and willing to accept my appeal through a discussion rather than just a statement from me? I don't want to argue; I want to work together to find the truth. Kolya Butternut (talk) 15:24, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

I can't realistically stop you from emailing anyone you want to. I suppose you can ask anyone you want to "investigate" the case, but there were plenty of people who already did at AE. You can appeal to me as the sanctioning admin, and I will listen to what you have to say, but I would want to hear it from you, not someone else. Seraphimblade 15:54, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

As an addendum, though, if you're talking about discussing by email with me, that's a no. Unless something involves something off-wiki and private, I discuss things on-wiki and transparently, not via backchannels. Seraphimblade 15:56, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

No, you seem to be the only person I am permitted to discuss this with on-wiki. So, could an appeal with you take the form of a discussion? This is a complex case. Kolya Butternut (talk) 16:14, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

You are already discussing it with me, right here. But I have yet to hear you say why I should rethink the outcome. Seraphimblade 16:24, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Seraphimblade, ok. Firstly, can you tell me what you specifically decided the sanction is for? Policies aren't cited here or in the close so I don't want to assume. Kolya Butternut (talk) 17:37, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

The AE report is, I think, clear enough. Primarily, the issues were harassment of SPECIFICO, disruption via bickering, and the filing of a vexatious AE report only a few days after a previous one was closed with no action. Seraphimblade 21:48, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Seraphimblade, would you prefer that I ping you with each response, or would it be more reasonable for you to check in here at your leisure? I don't do well with imprecision....

1. You feel my last AE report was groundless and intentional harassment.
2. Bickering refers to arguing at AE?
3. In addition to describing the last AE report as vexatious, you said I harassed SPECIFICO; where do you feel my behavior crossed that line, and do you think that was my intention...does that matter? Kolya Butternut (talk) 00:22, 27 October 2020 (UTC) typo Kolya Butternut (talk) 01:58, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

I am not interested in going into a massive degree of detail. As I stated, I believe the material at the AE report is already quite clear, and I am not going to rehash it ad nauseum. Please either say why you believe I ought to reconsider, or carry on doing something else. Seraphimblade 00:32, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

(As to your question about pinging me, I don't mind either way. I will have the page on watch, so I will see when you've said something, but it does not bother me if you'd like to add a ping as well.) Seraphimblade 00:39, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi KB, FYI a one-sentence-long example of a specific policy you broke is at WP:FOLLOWING: Using dispute resolution can itself constitute hounding if it involves persistently making frivolous or meritless complaints about another editor. Your welcome, 2A02:C7F:BE04:700:3920:992F:79F9:176 (talk) 13:02, 28 October 2020 (UTC) Clearly not a new editor. Kolya Butternut (talk) 19:27, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

I am very inactive on wikipedia but I do find its machinations interesting. Kolya, were you not invited to open a second complaint? Would this suggest that your actions were not vexatious? My apologies if this comment is out of place. 68.148.75.147 (talk) 20:05, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Kolya, as a mostly uninvolved editor, I’m here to tell you that you would do well to heed Liz’s advice. Try to remain conflict-free for six months, if that works out, appeal the interaction ban. I know you feel aggrieved, but sometimes in life we have to take a loss. This is one instance. I personally think your filing of the SPI case was a key mistake. You’ve had your shot and it didn’t work out. Don’t keep digging down this road. starship.paint (talk) 00:12, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

It's probably true that the SPI case is what was viewed the most poorly, but that's not a reason to not have filed it. It seems simple; I found behavioral evidence supporting my AE case, SPI is the forum for recording that evidence. I think I failed by not stating in the initial filing that my goal was to have the evidence documented and evaluated as part of a broader investigation. I also made a formatting error; I realize now it would have been permitted to create a custom format to put the IPs into a separate list so it didn't look like I was calling them sockpuppets. I learned the hard way at AE that I didn't have to stick to the given formatting.

I'm disappointed that no one commented on the SPI evidence; the context of the creation of their account is material to a case about a long-term behavioral pattern. Both the SPI evidence and non-AGF reaction to it are part of why my sanction should be overturned. The evidence is strong; it is material; and it was disregarded. It was not vexatious. Kolya Butternut (talk) 02:50, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Appeal argument

Seraphimblade, I believe SPECIFICO's new AE sanction shows that my last AE complaint has merit. Here SPECIFICO violated the Consensus required DS by reverting the restoration of longstanding text with a false edit summary, and editor Darouet states that Further examination of their editing at Talk:Julian Assange shows that this incident is consistent with SPECIFICO's behavior overall. While my AE complaint cited a violation of WP:NOCON rather than the enforced editing restriction, their later violation of the restriction shows that I had accurately judged that the 18 October edit I cited demonstrated disregard for AE complaints and the consensus process. I thought that it was best to keep the case simple, but if I had previously provided more diffs to illustrate their overall behavior at Aziz Ansari it would have put things into context.

I can provide detailed evidence as part of this appeal to show that my AE complaints had merit on their own, but Awilley has concluded that SPECIFICO has engaged in gaming behavior, and Swarm has witnessed SPECIFICO making bad faith comments.

The goal of my last AE complaint was for the community to believe my experience and help end the disruption, and specifically to restore the status quo ante bellum version of Aziz Ansari so that RfCs would be feasible. Awilley's recommendation to them upon sanction is the behavior which I would have wanted to see from SPECIFICO: In the future I highly recommend just self-reverting when you find yourself in violation of a rule. Not only can it save you headache, but it lowers the tension at the article and talk page, making a more conducive atmosphere for editors to work together and find consensus/compromise.

My first AE was about their overall pattern of behavior. I had been planning to file an AE report before they filed their case against me, and I have evidence of that. My anxiety around this has been tied to the feeling that no one believes me, and I felt that the SPI case was a clear illustration of their ethics on Misplaced Pages which I believe have not changed (only becoming more covert over time). It was and is essential to connect their present behavior to their initial behavior (and behavior in between).

Harassment

I did not want to focus on harassment because I did not want an IBAN, but the harassment has only come from SPECIFICO. After not having edited Aziz Ansari in over two years, they followed me to the article the same day I made my first edit to the article in over six months, where they reverted me with a false edit summary. (Their recent sanction also involves a false edit summary.) This began the dispute. It would take some time to explain everything that happened, but the clearest example of harassment was when they filed an AE complaint against me when I made unintentional minor violations of my TBAN.

When they filed the AE report, they:

1. Did not bring the mistake to my attention first.
2. Misrepresented the subject of the TBAN.
3. Repeatedly misgendered me intentionally.
4. Lied about having misgendered me intentionally.

I feel that the moment that I became an experienced editor was when I received my TBAN in May, and since then I have tried to stay cool when encountering bad faith behavior, but my weakness is when I experience the feeling that administrators do not believe me, especially when I ask for help. Otherwise I believe that I am able to ignore harassment.

If I am not able to skillfully bring cases to noticeboards which involve subtle (but serious) misconduct, then I could instead go to an administrator who has the time to look over it with me.

I think Levivich well-summarized the AE cases which preceded the recent report by Darouet and sanction by Awilley:

I have pinged editors just to let them know I am discussing them. Kolya Butternut (talk) 19:59, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Please consider this your one and only warning. You are interaction banned from discussing SPECIFICO. That includes here. If you do so again, you will be blocked. Seraphimblade 20:31, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Seraphimblade, I don't understand. I am appealing my IBAN as not necessary by showing that my reports were not vexatious and the nature of the interpersonal conflict was not harassment from me. Kolya Butternut (talk) 21:16, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Maybe that looked like I was asking to reopen my reports? I didn't mean to make it sound that way. Kolya Butternut (talk) 21:23, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

You said nothing about your report for which you were sanctioned. You were discussing a later one you had nothing to do with. In any case, you have said nothing so far that convinces me, and the fact that you are still monitoring SPECIFICO despite the interaction ban certainly gives me no confidence. So insofar as you are asking me to reverse the sanction, I am not going to do that. Seraphimblade 23:56, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Are you still open to discussing an appeal further? Kolya Butternut (talk) 00:31, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

No. I believe I just said that. Seraphimblade 02:42, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Appeal clarification

Kolya Butternut, an appeal should demonstrate that the I-Ban is no longer necessary, that you no longer are monitoring SPECIFICO's behavior and are no longer bringing complaints against them, it is not an invitation to relitigate your AE complaint to show how you were right. Your detailing problems with SPECIFICO's behavior is a violation of your I-Ban and you are lucky that Seraphimblade issued a warning instead of a block. You need to stop discussing SPECIFICO in every space of Misplaced Pages including your own talk page. You might have been able to say that you didn't know that before this but now you do. Liz 02:42, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Liz, I do not see how my statements in my appeal could not be excepted from the ban. I was not arguing that my IBAN is no longer necessary; I was arguing that my IBAN is improper. The IBAN was issued for filing vexatious complaints, so to argue that the IBAN was improper I must explain that the complaints have merit. In order to argue that the IBAN was improperly one-way against me I must explain that the harassment came from SPECIFICO. WP:BANEX just says IBANS do not apply to appeals; is there more detailed information elsewhere? (IBANS also do not apply to requests for clarifications about the scope of the ban, which I am making now.)

The characterization that I am "monitoring" their behavior seems unfair. The SPECIFICO (3) case is clearly a continuation of the same dispute concerning Julian Assange for which I had reported them, and my case and I are referenced. Is the scope of an AE IBAN a question for ARCA? Kolya Butternut (talk) 04:05, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Liz, would you let me know if you were mistaken about the scope of my ban before I ask others for help? Kolya Butternut (talk) 02:12, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Misplaced Pages arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:50, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

WP:HOUND again

We've been over this before: User talk:Kolya Butternut/Archive 1#WP:HOUND. And you were very clearly warned by Cullen328, JBW and Johnuniq. And that is why I made this recent comment. Seeing as you do not edit medical or anatomy articles and are not involved with WP:Med, the only logical explanation for how you wound up at the Suicidal ideation article is that you followed me there. It's not like the topic of suicidal ideation is within your usual realm of editing. It's not within your realm at all. You can deny having followed me as much as you want to, but it is obvious that you did. After recently interacting with you at two articles, I considered that you may follow me to the Suicidal ideation article if I left it on the first page of my contributions while being away for a day or more. And sure enough, you did. Predictable, predictable, predictable...just like some others (especially stalker socks I have to deal with).

This is your very last warning. Follow me to an article I am involved with again -- one that you are unlikely to have shown up to unless looking at my contributions and following me there -- and I will take you to WP:ANI. All the denials in the world will not help you. The case will be that solid. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 00:50, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Flyer, please take a moment to imagine a good faith explanation for my appearance at Suicidal ideation which does not involve you. I'll give you a moment to cool down and then remove this false accusation from my talk page. Kolya Butternut (talk) 00:54, 1 December 2020 (UTC)