User talk:ButterSlipper

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

ButterSlipper, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi ButterSlipper! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia – it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Please see Help:Minor edit for more information. Thank you. David Biddulph (talk) 17:12, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

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

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 Wikipedia rules. I "treat[ed] [Neutrality] 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 Wikipedia'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)

Acroterion, in my opinion ButterSlipper is currently engaging in an exhausting array of accusations, personal attacks, battleground statements, and quasi-legal threats; for example, within the past two hours:

• "you're revolting and vilifying assumption of bad-faith is intolerable."
• "You are attacking me needlessly and in a very rude way"
• "This is one of the multiple times this has occurred that someone has assumed something libellous about me and I will not take it."
• "you have sabotaged with few, false and fruitless contributions. You have unreasonably wiped out my edit. I will not accept this."
• "vulgar mudslinging"
• "I had correctly made the page what it was before you ruined it"
• "What you're saying is (in the non-legal sense) slander."

That's in addition to the edit-war on Adrian Zenz that he is currently engaged in [1] [2] [3] [4]. Softlavender (talk) 11:26, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

@Softlavender: You probably intended to ping Acroterion above, rather than the imposter Acroterian? - David Biddulph (talk) 11:20, 9 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 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.

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 Wikipedia because I found it fascinating and a way for me to contribute to a public project for a warm community. I am appealing my block now because I believe the block was unnecessary for preventing disruption on Wikipedia. The allegation that was thrown towards me in a warning was that I was perpetrating personal attacks. There was no evidence offered by Acroterion other than a reference to my conduct with Neutrality. When they had accused me of these attacks and I was genuinely confused. I had tried to reply politely and in good faith as Wikipedia manners go and then I had been blocked, accused of being coy and also accused of continuing hostility towards Neutrality after the warning. Reviewing my latest interaction with Neutrality at the time demonstrates that I was not committing any personal attacks.[1] Please showcase the legitimate personal attacks or violations of Wikipedia's standards I had exercised or undo this block. I only want to support the Wikipedia project. Thank you. ButterSlipper (talk) 11:56, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Decline reason:

This looks like a good block. You were being very hostile using terms like irrational, disgraceful, prejudice, asinine, lazy, and absurd. This seems to be simply because someone did not agree with you.

You were given a clear warning by administrator Acroterion which you responded to by insisting that you were unaware of any transgression.

Not long after that you carried on with words like bias, slander, dodgy, and immature. I want you to read Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a battleground. Simply put you need to handle people disagreeing with you without making it personal. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 12:18, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

• <ec>Blocking admin notes to save everybody reviewing some time:
• Personal attacks prior to warning:
  • [5], [6] (for which you were warned by another editor, but carried on), [7], [8], [9],
  • This after my warning, which I removed as an abuse of an article talkpage for personal attacks: [10][11],and which is the proximate cause for your block.
  • And this assumption of bad faith: [12], 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 Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia'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. Wikipedia 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 [referring to the edit] 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 Wikipedia'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 Wikipedia.

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 "[Neutrality's claims] 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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)

Thank you. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 01:48, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

While I think you are splitting rhetorical hairs to justify an aggressive set of edits, I appreciate your response. Please remember that blocks are blunt instruments, and the reasoning behind blocks and block templates can cover a great deal more than simple "personal attacks." We don't have a template for "treating Wikipedia as a battleground." We are volunteers, and requests by blocked editors that we provide a detailed statement of charges are often abused by editors who end up wasting volunteer time in demanding what amount to quasi-judicial charging documents.

I appreciate your self-reflection, and I encourage you to help the project out now that your bock has expired. Please try to take things less personally, and when you feel that you are getting irritated with someone, walk away for a while. Acroterion (talk) 02:13, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi Acroterion. I understand that many users gamify Wikipedia and Wikilawyer to advance their goals and end up wasting your time but the accusation that I was treating Wikipedia like a battleground was also false. I was being aggressive to stop disinformation from other users. The block was justified but still not needed in my opinion but the past is in the past and I will take on your great advice. Thank you. ButterSlipper (talk) 04:00, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Also please unblock me Acroterion now. It is multiple hours after the expiration date of my block. ButterSlipper (talk) 04:07, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

ButterSlipper, as a quick technical note: you don't need to link every mention of others' usernames. Doing so will ping them, and generally indicates that you seek their attention or response.

Thanks for the kind words. Now that you're back from your block, I encourage you to put that past dispute behind you. As you continue to collaborate here, consider that forceful language putting down the arguments of others can often be construed to apply to the editors themselves. I'd single out 'partisan' as a descriptor that could theoretically be applied solely to content but is more commonly interpreted as a comment on character. Don't feel you need to respond to this point if you disagree, I am just hopeful you consider it. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 02:22, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Firefangledfeathers. You're so right. I was quick to attack their arguments forgetting how it could be interpreted. I will be more careful with my selection of words in the next time. Also sorry for the ping, I hope it didn't bother you. Thanks. ButterSlipper (talk) 04:00, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

References

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:

My block has already expired and I have had a discussion with the admin who blocked me let me be unblocked now please 😭 it has been more than 60 hours now. ButterSlipper (talk) 04:22, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Your block has expired, you are no longer blocked. If you are experiencing a block you will have to post the block message you are seeing so we can investigate it. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 04:24, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

It says "Stop hand nuvola.svg You are currently unable to edit Wikipedia due to an autoblock affecting your IP address." HighInBC ButterSlipper (talk) 04:28, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

This blocked user's request to have autoblock on their IP address lifted has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request.

ButterSlipper (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

ButterSlipper (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

---

Block message:

Autoblocked because your IP address was recently used by "ButterSlipper". The reason given for ButterSlipper's block is: "Personal attacks or harassment".

• Blocking administrator: ‪Acroterion‬ (talk • blocks)

---

Decline reason: This account is no longer directly blocked, you should not be getting such a message; you will need to tell us the IP address involved for us to be able to help you. 331dot (talk) 07:59, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

For the record, I have worked to compromise with the blocking admin Acroterion and the expiration has already occurred. ButterSlipper (talk) 07:45, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi 331. The "block id" is 11247682. My IP is 192.168.1.105. ButterSlipper (talk) 08:05, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

That IP address is almost certainly that of your home network and not the one you actually use to connect to the internet. You can use a tool like whatismyip dot com to determine what your actual IP address is. As I said, there is no block on your account anymore to remove, so something else is affecting you. 331dot (talk) 08:15, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Here is the IP I got from googling 61.69.169.84 and there is definitely an issue that exists. If you have an email I an email an image of the message. 331dot ButterSlipper (talk) 08:18, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

There is no block on that IP address. Perhaps the block has not cleared your system; try clearing your browser's cache. 331dot (talk) 08:25, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion but that did not work. Still the same message about an autoblock on my IP. 331dot ButterSlipper (talk) 08:53, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Do you have a VPN in operation? If not, I'm out of ideas, there should be nothing preventing you from editing. 331dot (talk) 08:55, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

I have none active. Are there other authorities I can report this too? 331dot.

Could someone more knowledgable look at this? 331dot (talk) 09:10, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks 331dot x ButterSlipper (talk) 09:12, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Update on the situation! I am free to edit now, thank God 331dot. Thank you for helping and you can delete the template now. ButterSlipper (talk) 11:32, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

You could have as well, but it's okay. Best wishes. 331dot (talk) 12:48, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

My bad I didn't want to remove it without your consent and I thought I would not have authorisation or something but anyways I hope your day goes well 331dot thank you. ButterSlipper (talk) 12:52, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Do not add personal information about other contributors to Wikipedia without their explicit permission, as you did at User talk:Bobfrombrockley. Wikipedia operates on the principle that every contributor has the right to remain completely anonymous. Posting personal information about another user is strictly prohibited under Wikipedia's harassment policy. Wikipedia policy on this issue is strictly enforced and your edits have been reverted and/or suppressed, not least because such information can appear on web searches. Wikipedia's privacy policy is to protect the privacy of every user, including you. Persistently adding personal information about other contributors will result in being blocked from editing. Primefac (talk) 12:32, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Oh sorry, I didn't mean to do that. Could you explain though because the user themself had chosen to expose that information by putting their social medias in their user page that was extremely easy to navigate through with so I don't know how I really doxxed them or revealed personal information since that information was open to begin with. ButterSlipper (talk) 12:43, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Sure. They have put their social media platforms on their talk page, but they have not said who they are. Additionally, I see zero reason why being tagged in a twitter post means the subject material is directly related to anything; it is simply stating "here's something you might be interested, person I tagged". To then go down the route of checking out the article, seeing a different person named, and finding out every detail about their life in order to compare it to the proclivities of an editor on Wikipedia is extremely problematic.

Were you right? I don't know. Does it matter? Absolutely not. Bobfrombrockley has not posted their real-life identity on Wikipedia (or given any sort of "my website" link that obviously provides it), so thus attempting to determine their identity falls afoul of our outing rules.

If you have further questions please let me know. Primefac (talk) 14:49, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Ok, won't do ever again, thanks for telling me. ButterSlipper (talk) 22:48, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Please refrain from using talk pages such as Adrien Zenz for general discussion of the topic or other unrelated topics. They are for discussion related to improving the article in specific ways, based on reliable sources and the project policies and guidelines; they are not for use as a forum or chat room. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. See here for more information. Thank you. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:38, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

In addition please review Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, it is one of the most important things to understand here. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:38, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Just to be clear, BLP applies to talk pages. Doug Weller talk 16:11, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for informing me I must've accidentally skimmed that part. I will revert my message if it hasn't been done yet. :D ButterSlipper (talk) 22:55, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Adrian Zenz. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Softlavender (talk) 09:45, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Softlavender I am trying to reach a consensus with others but you have unilaterally chosen to edit the page and sanctioning collaboration. Please leave it at what I changed it to before and then once the consensus has been built we can change it to whatever the consensus decides. You are gargling up what I said; use the talk page to discuss edits instead of going on with this behaviour of editing it inappropriately and in contradictory with what the consensus desires (which is what I changed it to because we are still trying to build a consensus). Thank you. ButterSlipper (talk) 09:52, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

General sanctions alert - Uyghur genocide

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 the Uyghur genocide. Due to past disruption in this topic area, the community has enacted a more stringent set of rules. Any administrator may impose sanctions—such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks—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 these sanctions. 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 Firefangledfeathers (talk) 15:41, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

How is "please don't push these slanderous allegations of personal attacks." not a personal attack

This was your reply on User:Horse Eye's Back's talk page today. @Acroterion: the block doesn't seem to have made much difference. Doug Weller talk 16:15, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. We seem to be back to wholly inappropriate focus on disparaging or doxxing other editors, rather than on specific, sourced recommendations for article improvement. Some further self-reflection is in order, because if this continues, another block may be warranted, this time much longer or indefinite. The change in your editing behavior needs to stick for longer than a couple of days. Acroterion (talk) 16:58, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Sorry if it seems that way Acroterion. I did not mean to disparage or dox other editors, it was a mistake of me to look too deep in their social media and then bring up possibly personal information. I did not know that was a violation of the harassment policy and I will not do that again. I will try to be more invested in learning about the rules of Wikipedia. ButterSlipper (talk) 00:03, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

I'm just asking for them not to push those allegations that are demonstrably false??? That's not a personal attack. That's not even an attack on the argument; that is just a request. Please stop with the unfounded accusations. ButterSlipper (talk) 22:45, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Are you not aware of WP:AGF? Doug Weller talk 13:21, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

I know that Horse Eye's Back isn't deliberately trying to defame and attack me but I am just asking for them to stop pushing the allegations when they are slander (false + defaming statements). ButterSlipper (talk) 22:15, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

What slander and defamation would you be talking about? That you engaged in personal attacks? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:42, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Horse Eye's Back I have never personally attacked anyone, and if you're talking about our interaction on your talk page then you'd be wrong too because I did not attack Zialater. I have and still say that they were a good-faith editor whether or not that "jives". That is not a personal attack in the slightest. ButterSlipper (talk) 23:54, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

@Horse Eye's Back:. Might be best to disengage now. You are understandably het up. @ButterSlipper: we don't use words like "defame" or "slander" toward one another. Those are more than personal attacks. You are straying into no legal threats territory. I recommend you disengage for now, and read up on the links I've left, as well as WP:AGF. Thanks. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 01:55, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi Deepfriedokra. Sorry for using defame and slander. I didn't mean those in legal terms; sorry for coming off that way. Also thank you for the notice. ButterSlipper (talk) 02:19, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Edit war

I see 1. [[13]] 2. [[14]] 3. [[15]] 3 Reverts, in the last 12 hours, and note wp:3rr is not some magic upper limit you have to breach to be edit warring (read wp:editwar, very carefully).Slatersteven (talk) 10:36, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Slatersteven perhaps you should read a bit more carefully too. The actions of Mikehawk10 were demonstrably violations of BLP because the statements they were trying to restore were biased and poorly sourced. Henceforth none of my reverts constituted to 3RR. ButterSlipper (talk) 10:44, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

I did read it, and I disagree with all of the above. So this is now a warning, it is an RS, and you did not have consensus for your changes, thus you edit warred. I count 4 users at RSN who disagree with you, and have said its an RS, that should tell you you are wrong that this is not "poorly sourced".Slatersteven (talk) 10:49, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

The fact that you're measuring consensus based on the number of votes and not policy-based arguments is inaccurate. There are no valid policy-based arguments that the Mikehawk10 opposition have (if you want to count the editors I have refuted each one) and there none of the editors have made solid rebuttals against my policy-based arguments and Culley's (as I write this). I had consensus that Mikehawk10's statement is poorly sourced and biased at the time of those reverts so they do not count towards 3RR. ButterSlipper (talk) 11:04, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

No I am basing it on the number of experienced users who say saying your interpretation of policy is wrong. The Telegraph is an RS, there is nothing contentious about what languages a person can speak, If you revert again I will report you for edit warring, then we can see what the admins think.Slatersteven (talk) 11:15, 9 September 2021 (UTC)