User talk:Kolya Butternut

A belated welcome!

Sorry for the belated welcome, but the cookies are still warm!

Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, 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 Wikipedia:

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

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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate#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. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 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 ^{Talk to me} 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 ^{Read! Talk!} 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 Wikipedia, and will be blocked for violating the ban if you do so. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 14:39, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

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

1. Is discussion through Wikipedia 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 ^{Talk to me} 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 ^{Talk to me} 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 ^{Talk to me} 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 ^{Talk to me} 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 ^{Talk to me} 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 ^{Talk to me} 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)

Comment reinforces a false narrative
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Kolya, I don’t think you get it. Let’s talk about a hypothetical active editor. If this editor was so terrible, so disruptive, I’m sure someone would be able to find recent evidence of misconduct within the past year. If the only other evidence of misconduct being brought is eight years old, that seems like a pretty weak case already when discussing repeated misconduct, and reflects badly upon the accuser - it looks like a vendetta. That is why according to Dennis Brown, “using diffs that are more than a year old is seldom helpful.” P.S. - note that the “standard offer” on Wikipedia is six months, which means that editors may consider changes in behaviour after six months. Eight years is 16 times of that, it’s certainly long enough for anyone to have turned over a new leaf. starship.paint (talk) 14:03, 29 October 2020 (UTC) Recent evidence abounds and was provided. Kolya Butternut (talk) 17:04, 29 October 2020 (UTC) Wowzers. Good luck to you. starship.paint (talk) 06:15, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Appeal argument

Seraphimblade, I believe SPECIFICO's new AE sanction[1] 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,[2] and Swarm has witnessed SPECIFICO making bad faith comments.[3]

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.[4]

---

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 Wikipedia 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,[5] they followed me to the article the same day I made my first edit to the article in over six months,[6] where they reverted me with a false edit summary.[7] (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[8] 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:

AE report progression

AE #1, 8 Sep 2020, Specifico v. KB, involved (among other things) Specifico referring to KB as "it". Closed with "Kolya Butternut is reminded to be more mindful of the boundaries of their TBAN. SPECIFICO is warned to be more careful in their use of gender pronouns, and to avoid the use of object pronouns for human beings. No further action at this time; if anyone wishes to file a broader AE request looking at the general conduct of either user, they are free to do so." Because of that last sentence, we can't fault editors for bringing further AEs. AE #2, 26 Sep 2020, Thucydides411 v. Specifico. Another editor had removed content that had been in the article for years [9] [10] and Thucydides reverted the removal. Specifico re-removed the content with this 24 Sep 2020 edit, with the edit summary "Typical nonsense conspiracy theory pandering to his fans and the ignorant", which is either a BLPVIO (if aimed at Assange) or uncivil (if aimed at Thucydides). That thread was closed with "No consensus for sanctions". AE #3, 13 Oct 2020, KB v. Specifico. That involved (among other things, including edits to Aziz Ansari) two statements made by Specifico on 7 Oct 2020 about Thucydides: "Too bad that Thuc would take advantage of Awilley's tireless volunteer efforts and attention to continue his crusade for this bit of self-serving Assange propaganda" and "Thuc pins us to the lowest rungs of Graham's triangle, repeating his POV ever more insistently". That thread closed with "SPECIFICO is reminded that being rude isn't particularly helpful in discussions, and it is a slippery slope that can lead to sanctions later ..." AE #4, 21 Oct 2020, KB v. Specifico, is the current thread, involving this 18 Oct 2020 edit at Aziz Ansari with the edit summary "Restoring current consensus version that has been stable for a month ...". So in this AE #4, Specifico is reverting someone claiming that if the content has been stable for a month, it's the "current consensus version". But in AE #2, Specifico was arguing the exact opposite, re-instating a reverted edit that removed content that had been in the lead for years, and claiming that the onus for inclusion was upon those who wanted to include it. This sort of editing is disruptive, and it should be addressed. An IBAN won't help.

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 ^{Talk to me} 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 ^{Talk to me} 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 ^{Talk to me} 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 Wikipedia 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 ^{Read! Talk!} 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 Wikipedia 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)

Simple question: Do you deny that you followed me there? Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 00:56, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes, that is what I am clearly saying. If you would like to understand why I showed up there I could help put you at ease, but I will not tolerate more aggression and assumptions of bad faith on my talk page, and I ask that you strike your accusations. Kolya Butternut (talk) 01:00, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Looking at my contributions and then taking your self there is following me. You were warned by three admins to not do that again since your presence will aggravate me. And me noting this is not bad faith. Your so-called good-faith matters not. WP:HOUNDING is explicit about what counts as hounding. I actually care not for your reply, other than to show just how dishonest you can be. Go ahead and remove this section from your talk page. Follow me again, and you will be sanctioned. It's that simple. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 01:02, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

I did not look at your contributions; I did not follow you there. I politely asked you to calm down and even offered to explain what happened, but you continue to make specious accusations. Do not post here again unless you strike your accusations. If anyone else wants to hear the banal explanation, please ask. Kolya Butternut (talk) 01:08, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

I suppose that's a pretty big matzoh ball to leave hanging out here, so I'll have to ignore my resentment over the accusations and explain how I came to Suicidal ideation. I had added Markworthen's page to my watchlist a long time ago when I had been looking for credentialed experts in psychology and LGBT issues. I'd been working with WhatamIdoing recently, and when I saw her comment at User talk:Markworthen#Voting I was curious about what I thought was a discussion about an Arbitration committee election guide, but instead learned of an RfC...so I checked it out. I hadn't actually worked on content issues with WhatamIdoing, and was pleasantly surprised that we seemed to be on the same page here. Anyway, I saw straightforward corrections I could contribute to the page. I don't think it's any surprise that Flyer and I would be interested in the same topics; I just haven't expanded my editing much yet.

As a reminder, Flyer you are not to post on my talk page again. You may invite me to your talk page if you would like to discuss your feelings, but I do not feel I am the person to help you with your perceptions which I feel I am not responsible for. I would prefer to focus on content. Kolya Butternut (talk) 02:01, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Kolya Butternut, you have been blocked three times in seven months. You are also subject to an Arbitration Enforcement interaction ban with another editor. Back in September, I wrote "Kolya Butternut, please allow me to give you some advice for your own good. Please refrain from any behavior whatsoever that might reasonably be construed as hounding Flyer22 Reborn. Thank you very much." It seems that friendly advice was not effective, so let me restate it in another way: You are hereby warned that any hounding behavior toward the editor mentioned above or any other editor will result in a lengthy block. I hope that I have made myself crystal clear. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:24, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Cullen328, I'm disappointed to not hear you showing an interest in my perspective in the present or past conflicts before making conclusions. I have not engaged in hounding behavior towards Flyer; I feel you are not assuming good faith. In the future I would like to hear you engage in Active listening. We can choose to deescalate through understanding rather than assuming that where there's smoke there's fire. Kolya Butternut (talk) 02:50, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

I have read your perspective. Actively listen to me now. I have made no assumptions. Be very careful to avoid hounding behavior. You have been warned. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:57, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Cullen328, I respectfully ask that you familiarize yourself with Active listening. It's time to disengage. Kolya Butternut (talk) 03:07, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

I believe Kolya's explanation; given our long (but unrelated) conversations over the last couple of months, it is not at all an unreasonable chain of events. If I were keeping up with my watchlist, and I happened to see Kolya's name appear on it, I'd likely have done the same. I was actually surprised to see Flyer accuse Kolya of stalking her, when it was so obvious to me that Kolya was stalking me. I suppose this incident is a good reminder that what seems obvious isn't necessarily true. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:10, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

To be perfectly blunt, Kolya Butternut, at this point, your explanation does not matter. If this situation persists and is taken to ANI, it might be important. But right now, you've been warned by Cullen to keep your distance from Flyer so please abide by this advice, whether or not you think it is fair, because otherwise there will be consequences.

For what it's worth, I think every editor has other editors they keep some distance from, so consider Flyer added on to your list. I know I have my own list of editors I avoid because to engage with them on articles or talk pages will only incite conflict that doesn't improve Wikipedia, which is the point of all this. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:08, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Liz, I have lost patience with you. I am struggling to say this amicably, but the words which most accurately describe my feelings are that virtually all of your advice to me has been tone-deaf and unwelcome. The facts of events matter. I have nothing to do with Flyer's feelings, so you should advise her to not comment to the people whose presence bothers her. I see from your recent edit history[11] that you have not commented on Flyer's talk page. Kolya Butternut (talk) 06:48, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Your aspersions against Liz who came here to offer you some good advice are observed and duly noted. It is almost as if you are openly providing evidence that you are editing disruptively and are determined to keep on doing so. Do you lack the ability for self-reflection about your own behavior? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:19, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

I would not think I would be required to provide diffs to discuss my feelings. I have made clear that I do not agree that she has offered good advice, as when she previously gave me false advice and did not respond to a request for clarification.[12] I am finding your comments to be escalatory. I previously asked you politely to engage in Active listening, and now I will again ask you to disengage. I will now try something new. Cullen328, you are hearby banned from my talk page for 72 hours for escaltory rhetoric as seen in your previous comment. Kolya Butternut (talk) 07:49, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Cullen I consider your behaviour abusive. Talpedia (talk) 10:38, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Talpedia, WhatamIdoing, and Kolya Butternut. When editors, including administrators, pester another editor, which is what I see others doing in their comments to Kolya Butternut here, we alienate and drive away good editors. I am certainly far from perfect, but I am committed to following Old-fashioned Wikipedian values, a commitment I encourage every editor to consider. It's hard to follow, I have often fallen short, and I have experienced more enjoyment and serenity on Wikipedia since I began trying to conform my words and actions to those Values. (Note: I am commenting on what I see in this specific section of Kolya Butternut's talk page. I recognize that previous events or interactions about which I am unaware might be important to consider.) Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/his/him] 17:57, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

@Liz, AFAICT what actually happened is this:

• Mark started an RFC on 28 November.
• I left a note on Mark's talk page about how to format the RFC on 28 November; we talked about it more on 29 November.
• Flyer voted in the RFC on 29 November.
• Kolya joined the RFC-formatting discussion on Mark's talk page on 30 November.
• Kolya commented in the RFC (the same RFC whose formatting we were discussing) later on 30 November, and suggested a couple of sources that might be useful.
• Flyer posted here that she felt like Kolya was stalking her on 1 December.

Unless you think that all editors should normally check through all the comments in every RFC they encounter to make sure that nobody else who has already commented there might (mis-)perceive the reason for your participation in an open request for comments, then I think that warnings are inappropriate in this instance. And if you do think that, then maybe you'd like to go to WT:RFC and propose adding that advice to WP:RFC, so that the editors who try to follow all the rules won't be surprised by people who think they should know and follow the unwritten rules. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:08, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

• Look, here's the thing. Kolya's explanation of how they arrived at Suicidal ideation is quite reasonable. However, Kolya, once you were there you should have asked yourself whether the usefulness of your comment outweighed exacerbating whatever this friction is between you and Flyer. This is not to say whose fault that friction is, nor that you should permanently impose a ban on yourself from participating anywhere Flyer happens to be, but rather observing a reasonable period during which you say to yourself, "Hmmmm. Maybe I'll leave this discussion alone -- there's lots of editing I can do elsewhere". If I have the timeline right it looks like you jumped in and edited the page without knowing Flyer was involved, and there's no fault in that -- you're not expected to check edit histories before editing. But given your apparent history with Flyer it would have been smart to not respond to her directly on the talk page, and probably to not respond there at all. Other editors were handling things OK. EEng 15:18, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

@EEng: You are one of my favorite editors because you are thoughtful, judicious, insightful, and I love your sense of humor. I therefore take your advice and suggestions seriously, and the advice you are offering Kolya is certainly sound. At the same time, it seems that your advice applies equally to Flyer in this instance, e.g., did Flyer have to quickly accuse Kolya of hounding her? It's important to let some things slide, and to assume good faith unless the evidence is overwhelming that nefarious behavior has occurred. Additionally, I found Kolya's contributions to the Suicidal ideation Talk page to be appropriate and helpful. Obviously, I'm biased in that Kolya supported my position, although I think an objective account of her contributions would come to a similar conclusion. Sincerely, Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/his/him] 19:12, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

My focus was on helping Kolya understand why they're in hot water (or tepid water, anyway) so they could move on without feeling unfairly put upon. I recognized that fault might run both ways but (putting my head in the lion's mouth here) I've had a few encounters with Flyer myself, and she's given to the occasional AGF failure so I just wasn't in the mood to bring a stalking accusation on myself as well. EEng 05:40, 3 December 2020 (UTC) P.S. BTW, I think WT:Manual_of_Style#Ref_tags_before_closing_paren is coming back to life so maybe keep your eye on it.