User talk:Kolya Butternut/Archive 3

Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction
, 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)
 * , 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.
 * , 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)
 * , I'll try to break down the questions:
 * Is discussion through Wikipedia email ok?
 * 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?)
 * If yes, would that person then be permitted to make a statement?
 * 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)
 * , 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)
 * , 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 im precision....
 * You feel my last AE report was groundless and intentional harassment.
 * Bickering refers to arguing at AE?
 * 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)


 * 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
, 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 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 has concluded that SPECIFICO has engaged in gaming behavior, and  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 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, 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 well-summarized the AE cases which preceded the recent report by Darouet and sanction by Awilley:

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  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)
 * , 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)
 * , 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)
 * , 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)

WP:HOUND again
We've been over this before: User talk:Kolya Butternut/Archive 1. 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 '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 recently, and when I saw her comment at User talk:Markworthen 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)
 * , 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)
 * , 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)
 * , 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 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. 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., 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)
 * 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)
 * 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. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 05:40, 3 December 2020 (UTC) P.S. BTW, I think WT:Manual_of_Style is coming back to life so maybe keep your eye on it.

Flyer22 and WanderingWanda arbitration case opened
The Arbitration Committee has accepted and opened the Flyer22 and WanderingWanda case at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Flyer22 and WanderingWanda. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Flyer22 and WanderingWanda/Evidence. Please add your evidence by December 30, which is when the evidence phase is scheduled to close. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Arbitration/Requests/Case/Flyer22 and WanderingWanda/Workshop, which closes January 13, 2020. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. To opt out of future mailings please see Arbitration/Requests/Case/Flyer22 and WanderingWanda/Notification list. For the Arbitration Committee, KevinL ( aka L235 · t · c) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:03, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Your e-mail
Hi, you wrote: "You recently draftified Public image of Donald Trump at my request, but I have not been able to work on it as I would have liked because of my IBAN. I feel the IBAN should be expanded from one-way to two-way. May I freely discuss the editor with you?"

That is something you need to discuss with whoever imposed the interaction ban, not with me, sorry.  Sandstein  10:31, 21 December 2020 (UTC)


 * , are you willing to discuss this? Kolya Butternut (talk) 13:07, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Absolutely not. You are interaction banned. You must stop discussing SPECIFICO. Seraphimblade Talk to me 19:20, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

December 2020
<div class="user-block" style="padding: 5px; margin-bottom: 0.5em; border: 1px solid #a9a9a9; background-color: #ffefd5; min-height: 40px">To enforce an arbitration decision you have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block or other sanctions. If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page:. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard I suggest you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page. Seraphimblade Talk to me 19:19, 21 December 2020 (UTC) <p style="line-height: 90%;"> Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."

I am appealing the block which I received from for "violating an arbitration decision" (a one-way IBAN). The block was given after the following events:

I wrote an email to administrator requesting to discuss the IBAN and its associated editor, Sandstein posted my email to my talk page and responded there, copied below:

I obliged by pinging Seraphimblade to ask if he was "willing to discuss this?"; in response I was blocked and told "Absolutely not. You are interaction banned. You must stop discussing SPECIFICO", in that order.

I do not know if I am permitted to state here specifically what I had intended to report, but I believe my email and talk page post were both exceptions under WP:BANEX, and email was specifically permitted by Seraphimblade himself. Following my IBAN I had previously asked him, "Is discussion through Wikipedia email ok?" and "Am I permitted to neutrally ask an uninvolved party to investigate the case?", to which he replied, "I can't realistically stop you from emailing anyone you want to. I suppose you can ask anyone you want to 'investigate' the case...."

Per WP:BANEX, I was "Engaging in legitimate and necessary dispute resolution, e.g. addressing a legitimate concern about the ban itself in an appropriate forum. (Email was specifically identified as an appropriate forum to ask someone to "investigate" the case.) In addition, I sought clarification as to whether changing an IBAN from one-way to two-way would be considered a "modification" or a "replacement" of the sanction. My understanding is that administrators may replace an existing WP:AE sanction issued by another administrator with a new sanction, but an administrator may not modify an existing sanction issued by another administrator. My thought was that an expanded sanction which does not reduce my personal restrictions would be considered a replacement. Kolya Butternut (talk) 00:06, 22 December 2020 (UTC) minor clarification Kolya Butternut (talk) 02:54, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

email
KB, I got your email, and I'm a bit mystified. I've had zero to do with this block as far as I can recall, and I don't even see that you've completed an unblock request. —valereee (talk) 23:42, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi, thanks for you response. I just emailed you because I saw you participate at WP:AN. I wasn't sure who to ask. I see my request at Category:Requests for unblock. Kolya Butternut (talk) 23:49, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , sorry to ping again, but what did you mean that you didn't see that I completed an unblock request? If there may be a glitch with my request I would like to fix it. Kolya Butternut (talk) 01:59, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Just that it wasn't clear that you were making an unblock. The info in the above few paragraphs starting with "I am appealing" and ending with "considered a replacement", is that your unblock request, and you're requesting someone copy it to AN? If it is, I'd recommend you read the GAB very closely and consider rewording. Most successful unblock requests are stated in terms of "I realize that doing X was problematic because (reasons why), and I am committed to never doing X and causing those kinds of problems again." I haven't given more than a cursory look at your actual case, but trying to explain why your behavior is an exception to your iban -- it seems like you were trying to argue that commenting on a user you were ibanned from constituted an exception because it was important someone saw what you were reporting? -- is likely going to take you nowhere. —valereee (talk) 02:16, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I might be as confused as you are. I didn't discuss anything on-wiki? I was surprised my email was posted publicly, but Sandstein said I had to ask the blocking administrator, so I intended to ask the blocking administrator about making a new report within the scope of BANEX, and whether another admin could "replace" the sanction. Kolya Butternut (talk) 02:45, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Again, I haven't done a lot of looking into this, but: Sandstein specifically states on their user page that they reserve the right to post any emails they receive on the sender's talk. The posting itself possibly wouldn't have gotten you in trouble if you'd not continued there, depends on any specifics of your iban and on how a given admin interprets them, but when you pinged Seraphimblade and on your user talk asked if they'd be willing to discuss the idea, you turned it into you asking about this on-wiki, which pretty much any admin would interpret as a vio of pretty much any iban.
 * As to your specific original question, I'll speak in very general terms so that you aren't in danger of continuing with the vio. 1-way ibans inherently suck for Editor A because they're a bit at the mercy of Editor B. Any admin who imposes such a limitation likely thinks very hard about it because they're aware of that inherent suckiness. Editor A asking that the ban be made 2-way because 1-ways are so sucky is by definition referring to EditorB because it's asking that EditorB receive an editing restriction. It's not really even indirectly referring to them.
 * So, to bring this back to the content of your unblock request: Simply repeating the progression of events here in your unblock request could be interpreted as another vio, so I'd probably strike that whole section (above this one and below the unblock request). Rather than risking a discussion somewhere, I think I'd consider using a normal unblock request; I don't think it requires a discussion unless Seraphimblade objects, and if they do, it's unlikely a discussion would help. And from my (admittedly incomplete) understanding of events, I'm afraid all you can really do at this point is apologize, say the progression of events got away from you, that you hadn't really thought through what you were asking or where you were asking it, and promise to be more careful.
 * If you need more clarity but are afraid to ask <g>, you can email me. I'll answer here, but I won't post the contents of your email. —valereee (talk) 13:18, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , please post my unblock request to WP:AN; per WP:AEBLOCK, I am requesting review at the administrators' noticeboard. I believe this appeal is "legitimate and necessary dispute resolution, e.g. addressing a legitimate concern about the ban itself", per WP:BANEX, so it should not be a violation. It is necessary for me to discuss what happened in order for me to appeal. Kolya Butternut (talk) 14:25, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Please note that the potential report I had hoped to discuss in the email was not something I wanted to file because "1-ways are so sucky". That is a misinterpretation of what this is fundamentally about, but these are issues which should be discussed at WP:AN. Kolya Butternut (talk) 14:44, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * By "your unblock request" you mean everything from "I am appealing the block" through "considered a replacement"? —valereee (talk) 14:59, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , yes, but I would like the appeal to be as clear as possible. I emailed you, could we discuss what I am permitted to say? Also, I believe I am to be given permission to edit WP:AN once it is posted. Kolya Butternut (talk) 15:26, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , I modified my appeal below. Do you feel it is clear and within the scope of BANEX? If so, please post it to WP:AN. Kolya Butternut (talk) 16:24, 23 December 2020 (UTC) Kolya Butternut (talk) 16:37, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * KB, I am not going to try to advise you on whether it's clear and in scope. I've already given you my best advice. If you want me to post it, I will, but I think it's a mistake to try to appeal a block that has like five days left on it via a discussion you can't directly participate in. Also, I'm headed into Christmas Eve and Christmas and probably won't be much available to help copy over for the next couple of days, so be sure to have someone else in mind to ping.
 * So: post the below, or not? —valereee (talk) 17:53, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , yes, please post the modified appeal. I believe I am to be given permission to participate in the discussion at WP:AN, but regardless, please post immediately, thank you. Kolya Butternut (talk) 17:56, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , I saw you're already participating at WP:AN, too. Would you be able to copy over comments I make? I had thought that once an appeal is made I was to be given permission to edit the noticeboard, though. Kolya Butternut (talk) 18:03, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted —valereee (talk) 18:07, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I was just about to say sure but val beat me to it. Levivich harass/hound 18:16, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I was just about to say sure but val beat me to it. Levivich harass/hound 18:16, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Modified appeal
I am appealing the block which I received from for "violating an arbitration decision" (a one-way IBAN). The block was given after I made the following post on my talk page:



What I hoped to discuss was an email which I had sent to admin Sandstein which they had posted on my talk page. I wanted to ask Seriphimblade if what I inferred that Sandstein meant in the email was true: that I am only permitted to discuss replacement of my IBAN with the blocking administrator. I wanted to ask Seriphimblade questions about 1-way IBANS which are unclear under WP:BANEX, specifically, how would I make a new report within the scope of my IBAN?

As for the email to Sandstein itself, I was surprised it was posted on my talk page as I felt it was clearly intended to be confidential, but I should have made that clear to Sandstein. Regardless, discussing the case through email was specifically permitted by Seraphimblade. Following my IBAN I had previously asked him, "Is discussion through Wikipedia email ok?" and "Am I permitted to neutrally ask an uninvolved party to investigate the case?", to which he replied, "I can't realistically stop you from emailing anyone you want to. I suppose you can ask anyone you want to 'investigate' the case...."

I believe both my email and talk page post were exceptions under WP:BANEX because I was "Engaging in legitimate and necessary dispute resolution, e.g. addressing a legitimate concern about the ban itself in an appropriate forum." Email was specifically identified as an appropriate forum to ask someone to "investigate" the case.

I should have made it more clear to Seraphimblade what specifically I was asking and how I felt that was an exception under BANEX, but I was caught quite by surprise by the email post, and I thought the appropriate thing to do was to notify Seraphimblade and first just ask him if he was willing to discuss anything about this. Kolya Butternut (talk) 16:17, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * For clarity's sake, the reason I blocked you was not because you discussed the interaction ban. Yes, BANEX permits that. Had you asked me "Would requesting sanctions against SPECIFICO violate my interaction ban?", that question in and of itself would fall under BANEX as requesting clarification. (And I would have told you it certainly would, and we would have avoided this situation.) But interaction banned means, well, that. Requesting sanctions against an editor who you are interaction banned with (the one exception being if they are reciprocally interaction banned and you have reported a violation of that ban) is pretty much the canonical type of behavior we implement an IBAN to prohibit. I already gave you one warning above for discussing SPECIFICO in violation of your ban, and I'm not in the habit of giving repeated warnings. Seraphimblade Talk to me 17:12, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh, and also from the above discussion, valereee is correct that I did not block you because of what Sandstein posted, since that is Sandstein having brought the matter on-wiki, not you. Had you left it lie there, there would have been no need for sanction; I would not penalize you for what someone besides you posted. But you are not permitted to discuss SPECIFICO on-wiki, and you then chose to continue to seek sanctions against SPECIFICO there. Seraphimblade Talk to me 17:21, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , I am hearing that you blocked me because of my question, but it sounds like you've made assumptions about what that question was. If you will not unblock me, please post my unblock request to WP:AN. For the record, you previously warned me for discussing the very case I was appealing; I believe that is explicitly permitted under BANEX. Kolya Butternut (talk) 17:53, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * So, let me clarify. In what Sandstein copied, you stated I feel the IBAN should be expanded from one-way to two-way. Directly under that, you said that you wanted to discuss "this". If "this" did not reference the email Sandstein copied in, to what did it refer? Seraphimblade Talk to me 18:02, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Maybe you could have asked what "this" refers to before blocking, if you weren't sure. Levivich harass/hound 18:15, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, I was asking to discuss "this" email; and part of what I wanted to ask was whether it was true that I could not email administrators with that question. Kolya Butternut (talk) 18:17, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * This really seems to be straight out of Kafka. Mr Ernie (talk) 12:58, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Uncareful blocks
, this is not the first time this has happened. Kolya Butternut (talk) 21:04, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , I would also ask that a different administrator impose the 2-way IBAN, per my comment above referenced by Mr Ernie and Nsk92. Kolya Butternut (talk) 03:59, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Also, per Levivich, "Seraphim should not use admin tools with respect to KB in the future." Kolya Butternut (talk) 04:19, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Close request
, I would like to participate at arbitration today, would it be possible to have my unblock request closed? The discussion was active between 16:17, 23 December and 20:53, 24 December, and since then the only comments have been suggestions to close the discussion (starship.paint had already !voted). Kolya Butternut (talk) 13:31, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
 * If not a full close, could just the unblock request be closed? The discussion has expanded to the question of the IBAN itself (which I haven't had a chance to comment on). Kolya Butternut (talk) 17:05, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I've posted the request to the AN discussion. —valereee (talk) 17:13, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I've unblocked. Drmies (talk) 22:28, 26 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Glad this was handled without me, Kolya, you've still got four days to submit evidence, will that be enough time? Beeblebrox (talk) 01:15, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Arbitration/Requests/Case/Flyer22 and WanderingWanda/Workshop
Hi. Your evidence on a current  case may or may  not  be valid and I'm not  commenting  on  that, but I  note  from  among the comments and administrator actions on  your  talk  page particularly  with   that your own participation on Wikipedia may not be entirely free of controversy. Hence you may  wish  to  be sure of your facts before making  suggestions for proposed remedies at  Arbcom cases, especially  if you  might not be directly  involved in  the case as a party. Arbcom, as jury, judge, and executioner, is sometimes apt to use the evidence, comments and suggestions of uninvolved editors without fully  investigating (I can attest to  this from my  own experience), so  while I  might  be retired from Wikipedia, I am extremely concerned that  all accused parties get a fair hearing. Happy New Year 🙂. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:22, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , I have full confidence in my evidence. This may be a good opportunity for you to participate at the Workshop#Analysis of evidence. You may also wish to evaluate the evidence against the statements of the administrators who you pinged above: Statement by Cullen328, Statement by JBW, Statement by Johnuniq. Kolya Butternut (talk) 12:01, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I am not involved, therefore I have neither evidence to give nor to refute. My only concern is that the committee reach an equitable solution. You may wish to read again what I said: Your evidence on a current case may or may not be valid and I'm not commenting on that - and please read again carefully the rest of the content of my post. That said, while it might be possible that an Arbitration Committee may not always close every case in the best interests of the Community or the accused, I do have every confidence in the statements of my former, highly regarded admin colleagues, and for me to examine any other evidence against their opinions would be to gravely insult their knowledge and good standing.  Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:47, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The Arbitration case Workshop exists so that parties to the case, other interested members of the community, and members of the Arbitration Committee can post possible components of the final decision for review and comment by others. ... There are also sections for analysis of /Evidence, and for general discussion of the case. Any user may edit this workshop page. Kolya Butternut (talk) 13:07, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
 * It seems you did not understand what I wrote, because although your  cited section  is correct, as a reply it is completely  taken out  of context here. I  thought  I  was being  helpful by  pointing  out  that a claim you  made on  the case appears to  be  based purely  on  a user sub page and not  on  a policy  or guideline. That  said, I'm  the last  person  who  needs reminding of our policies. or how or where I  can contribute. Let's leave it at that, shall we? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:08, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I would like to end this discussion but I feel it is necessary to correct your statements on my talk page. The comment you made was in response to my proposed sanction which is a custom sanction on an administrator's subpage . As administrator commented at the workshop, "A proposed sanction can be one that is entirely new, one that has been around many years or anything in between. ... Where the proposal originated, how long its been around, who wrote it, etc. are almost always going to be irrelevant."
 * Kudpung, I have interpreted your comments here as personal attacks against my credibility, and I felt like you were making nonspecific requests from administrators to investigate me. I remind you of the findings of fact at your Arbitration case: Kudpung has occasionally made remarks towards other editors that could be interpreted as personal attacks.[14][15][16] In disputes with other editors, he has also made nonspecific threats of retaliating against or "investigating" the other party. WP:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kudpung. Let's disengage. Kolya Butternut (talk) 13:50, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I have to agree that your conduct regarding KB's involvement in this case has been inappropriate. The tone of the above messages reads to me like you are attempting to intimidate them into withdrawing their evidence and/or participation more generally. This is not acceptable and is exactly the same manner of conduct that led to your being desysopped. It doesn't matter whether that is or is not your intent. Thryduulf (talk) 14:20, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Absolutly not,, in fact I've been deliberately and extremely careful to avoid such a misinterpretation of my intent - I'm not stupid - and to remain formal and polite. ..he has also made nonspecific threats of retaliating against or "investigating" the other party couldn't be further from the truth and there was no finding by Arbcom that I should be muzzled and not be allowed to point out a discrepancy.  Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:41, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
 * You might have been attempting to avoid people interpreting your intent that way, but if so you have failed as KB and I have independently both said that is how we have interpreted it. If you wish to dispute the findings in your arbitration case then you know exactly how to do that, and know that the talk page of a random user is very much not the place to do so. If you wish to take discussion of your conduct at the WW/Flyer arbitration case further then please do so on a talk page of that arbitration case. Thryduulf (talk) 14:46, 2 January 2021 (UTC)