User talk:Butterscotch Beluga

Hello Butterscotch Beluga! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking

or typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Masterhatch (talk) 14:11, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Getting Started
Wikipedia Tutorial • The five pillars of Wikipedia How to: edit a page • upload an image
Getting Help
Frequently Asked Questions Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention
Policies and Guidelines
Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Fair use • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The Community
Build consensus • Resolving disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community Portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists
Things to do
Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Pages needing attention • Peer review Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism
Miscellaneous
Useful templates • Categories • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Tools • User scripts

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

You have recently made edits related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people. This is a standard message to inform you that post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics.

You have recently made edits related to the Arab–Israeli conflict. This is a standard message to inform you that the Arab–Israeli conflict is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. Additionally, editors must be logged-in, have 500 edits and an account age of 30 days, and are not allowed to make more than 1 revert on the same page within 24 hours for pages within this topic. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 02:06, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I was trying to tip-toe around making any edits related to WP:PIA & eventually realized how that left me with few places to edit do to how many of the sources used reference the topic :P Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 02:12, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good evening

The editing environment of the List article doesn’t look ideal. Mr. Wikipedious1 doesn’t seem to show signs of stopping the use of offensive language or making dehumanising references. I have tried my best to cooperate and keep things gentleman, but it doesn’t seem to work. May I ask if you can help me keep things under control? Thank you for your participation in editing the article and pointing out the problems I wasn’t aware of. Steven1991 (talk) 19:32, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why you're asking for my help as I've clearly been trying to, as you'd know if you'd read the talk page in full. Instead however, you seemed to brush that aside when you brought those issues to WP:AN & WP:SPI. You keep saying that you are acting polite & cooperative, but as I said at the investigation, accusing several editors of sockpuppetry on nigh-zero evidence, just because they all disagreed with your editing in some way, is about the most bad faith assumption you can make.

As I've already addressed, yes Wikipedious1 should've been more polite, something they've already acknowledged & you seem to've ignored.

I honestly feel a little insulted that, instead of accepting my attempts at mediation, you went around to other forums kicking up a fuss & only after that didn't work in your favor, you come back to me. Good faith isn't just being "polite", it's also your conduct & willingness to collaborate, discuss, & compromise. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 19:58, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see, but as I know, every user is allowed to request a sockpuppet investigation when there are any suspicions. It doesn’t have to do with any involvement in the editing of any articles. I can tell you that the request was not a direct consequence of any alleged disputes with any of the accounts. I don’t understand why there would be such an assumption. I am sorry that you don’t appreciate politeness as a sign of good faith – we probably have different understanding of what politeness is due to different parenting or upbringings. Have a good day. Steven1991 (talk) 20:15, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

nigh-zero evidence

I am sorry – this is not true, because the request was supplemented by multiple links of AI analysis results by relevant softwares, which most users are probably not aware of. I believe that having those results carries more water than those without.

something they've already acknowledged & you seem to've ignored.

No, the user is still doing it.Steven1991 (talk) 20:18, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They are not & I'm not sure why you think they are. I quoted their acknowledgement, which was from one of their latest edits. This comes from an even newer comment -

"As far as my edit summary, "You are in the wrong now. Respond on the talk page like a mature Wikipedian before attempting this again." Yes this is not an appropriate edit summary, it was made out of frustration. Would agree with beluga that it is not harassing nor an attack, but in all fairness it was personal and addressed to the user."

Where & in what way have they used offensive language or dehumanizing references since? Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 20:35, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Where & in what way have they used offensive language or dehumanizing references since?

The user is still referring to me as an entity. Those messages are all over the thread of the bottom topic on the Talk page. Steven1991 (talk) 21:53, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Again, those were before they wrote what I had quoted. You said they have continued doing so, I can't see any proof that they have made such comments since. Check the times of their comments, then you can either prove me wrong & link it here or drop the stick. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 22:12, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your clarification. Steven1991 (talk) 23:05, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your thread has been archived

Hi Butterscotch Beluga! The thread you created at the Teahouse, List of antisemitic incidents in the United States & BLP, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days.

You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please create a new thread.

See also the help page about the archival process. The archival was done by lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by KiranBOT, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=KiranBOT}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). —KiranBOT (talk) 05:36, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]