User talk:Kolya Butternut/Archive 5

Re: Williams, suicide language and bludgeoning
Just to expand more on my comment from the Robin Williams talk page (as it deserves more expansion off that page), you should be very much cautioned that your behavior at the Williams page, as well as the discussion over at the "wheelchair-bound" language, as well as from at least one other debate I saw you at (Joe Biden sexual assault allegation) fall well in the behavior of WP:BLUDGEON, particularly as these have the tone of righting great wrongs. Together, there's no direct action that can be taken from that that I can see, but this is considered disruptive to consensus building, and if there's long-term patterns of this, you may find others less hesitant to take that to AN/ANI. You can see the frustration in the wheelchair language debate from long-standing editors like EEng, for example. Be aware of how much you are participating in these discussions and if you are bringing new arguments. Keeping on repeating the same arguments, and repeating it over multiple threads is not helpful. That BLUDGEON page has really good advice for how to participate in discussions without excessively throwing your input into it. Please take this as advice from me, and not as any type of "warning" or the like towards admin action. --M asem (t) 19:36, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm commenting here rather than Masem's page, because that's where the discussion is. Further to my comment here, I wonder if Masem you would consider striking your comment about "rewarding the bludgeoning behavior". We make edits in article space to improve the information we write to our readers, and making or not making them should never be influenced by your reaction to another editors behaviour. You've just made explicit that a reason for your reluctance to improve our content was that it "rewarded" someone you are in conflict. Indeed, several of your comments about editors potentially gaming the system, seem to show you are over concerned with the wiki politics and less so of our readers. You might want to consider that you've had that page watchlisted and have consistently blocked attempts by multiple editors to revise the language long before Kolya even stared editing Wikipedia. You cited Tendentious editing above when you commented on righting great wrongs but perhaps the "Repeating the same argument without convincing people" section best describes your role on that page since Williams died. WP:BLUDGEON has advice I think for both of you.
 * As I noted somewhere else, the "righting great wrongs" guideline is not about language choices by editors in article space. It is about facts, that some editors believe to be true and the world needs to be told and corrected. You might think this is relevant to editors discussing word choices for social reasons but this is wrong. I get that it is handy to have some wiki shortcut that seems to condone a conservative approach to language change. It doesn't. The irony is that "righting great wrongs" is solved by citing reliable sources and the opinions of experts, and telling editors that their own personal opinions and original thoughts on the matter aren't important. And exactly the opposite is occurring wrt social language choices, where the most vocal and strident voices taking a conservative approach often base their argument entirely on personal opinion, dubious google searches and odd ideas of what Wikipedia tends to do. That guideline doesn't help the case at all. I mean, wrt facts, an editor arguing that several dictionaries are wrong or that we should ignore experts, would be laughed out of town. Yet Kolya has brought expert sources to the discussion and two dictionaries and gets told experts should be dismissed.
 * A final point about blugeon. There is an asymmetry here. Firstly Brandolini's law explains "The amount of energy needed to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude larger than is needed to produce it." While many folk might have responded to a request to reword the article with a "sure", instead they've had to overcome a machine that tells them such changes are not permitted because politics. Secondly, the text Kolya wanted changed was the current text and incumbency is a huge huge advantage. Objecting to change only requires two letters: "no". So those arguing for change will automatically have the harder job and are likely to write more. That doesn't mean Kolya doesn't need to watch out, but there are numerous edits on that talk page from both of you, back and forth. -- Colin°Talk 12:48, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions topic area changes
In a process that began last year with WP:DS2021, the Arbitration Committee is evaluating Discretionary Sanctions (DS) in order to improve it. A larger package of reforms is slated for sometime this year. From the work done so far, it became clear a number of areas may no longer need DS or that some DS areas may be overly broad.

The topics proposed for revocation are:
 * Senkaku islands
 * Waldorf education
 * Ancient Egyptian race controversy
 * Scientology
 * Landmark worldwide

The topics proposed for a rewording of what is covered under DS are:
 * India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan
 * Armenia/Azerbaijan

Additionally any Article probation topics not already revoked are proposed for revocation.

Community feedback is invited and welcome at Arbitration/Requests/Motions. --Barkeep49 (talk) 16:59, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions topic area changes
In a process that began last year with WP:DS2021, the Arbitration Committee is evaluating Discretionary Sanctions (DS) in order to improve it. A larger package of reforms is slated for sometime this year. From the work done so far, it became clear a number of areas may no longer need DS or that some DS areas may be overly broad.

The topics proposed for revocation are:
 * Senkaku islands
 * Waldorf education
 * Ancient Egyptian race controversy
 * Scientology
 * Landmark worldwide

The topics proposed for a rewording of what is covered under DS are:
 * India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan
 * Armenia/Azerbaijan

Additionally any Article probation topics not already revoked are proposed for revocation.

Community feedback is invited and welcome at Arbitration/Requests/Motions. --Barkeep49 (talk) 04:36, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions alert
Beccaynr (talk) 04:02, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Update: Phase II of DS reform now open for comment
You were either a participant in WP:DS2021 (the Arbitration Committee's Discretionary Sanctions reform process) or requested to be notified about future developments regarding DS reform. The Committee now presents Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions/2021-22_review/Phase_II_consultation, and invites your feedback. Your patience has been appreciated. For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:01, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:Jenny Wright Lawnmower Man publicity photo.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Jenny Wright Lawnmower Man publicity photo.jpg. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:


 * 1) Go to the file description page and add the text  below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing   with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
 * 2) On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on [ this link]. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification, per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Whpq (talk) 01:06, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Link to closed discussion: Deletion review/Log/2022 September 8 Kolya Butternut (talk) 17:19, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:Brooke Adams headshot.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Brooke Adams headshot.jpg. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:


 * 1) Go to the file description page and add the text  below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing   with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
 * 2) On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on [ this link]. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification, per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:27, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
 * , what about this publicity photo from a 1975 television movie which doesn't appear to have been copyrighted; is it free per the Hirtle chart? Kolya Butternut (talk) 01:52, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
 * It possibly could be PD-US-no notice if it can be verified that there's no copyright notice on the back of the photo. It's not clear the second image shown is actually the back of the photo (it looks like something overlaid over the front), but this appears to be the same photo with a clearer image of the back. This would be a good thing to ask about at c:COM:VPC because Commons is where such an image should be uploaded. If the image is OK for Commons, then you should upload the full image, and then upload a crop as a separate file since the same license would apply to the crop. You could then use the templates c:Template:Extracted from and c:Template:Image extracted to connect the images. I think there is a way to "crop" a file for a Wikipedia article's infobox without out actually needing to upload a separate cropped version of the file, but don't know how it's done. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:51, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Commons has a crop tool that can be enabled in Preferences > Gadgets. The tool can be used to crop the photo and the tool will take care of applying the appropriate templates and uploading the crop as a separate file.  With the link provided by Marchjuly, it does look very much like it is PD because of lack of notice.  Particularly important is that the image of the back of the photo shows date stamps that verify the date falls in the qualifying time persiod. Whpq (talk) 12:52, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
 * @Kolya Butternut: It probably would've been better for you to upload the other version I found which more clearly shows the back of the photo with the time stamps that mentioned above. Even if it's not exactly as clean of copy of the front of the photo, there would be less doubt about its copyright status. So, you might want to add a link to that other version to the description of the one you uploaded just for reference purposes. You can add links for the main page and then for the front and back of the photo. There's no way of knowing how long that photo will be available on that website; so, the more information you can provide about it and its lack of copyright status in the file's description, the less likely the photo's licensing will be challenged sometime down the road. You could even add something this discussion to the file's talk page. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:07, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions review: proposed decision and community review
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to updates on the Arbitration Committee's discretionary sanctions review process. The Proposed Decision phase of the discretionary sanctions review process has now opened. A five-day public review period for the proposed decision, before arbitrators cast votes on the proposed decision, is open through November 18. Any interested editors are invited to comment on the proposed decision talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:56, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. 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 2022 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 to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:32, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Contentious topics procedure adopted
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to updates on the Arbitration Committee's discretionary sanctions review process.

The Arbitration Committee has concluded the 2021-22 review of the contentious topics system (formerly known as discretionary sanctions), and its final decision is viewable at the revision process page. As part of the review process, the Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

This motion initiates a one-month implementation period for the updates to the contentious topics system. The Arbitration Committee will announce when the initial implementation of the Committee's decision has concluded and the amendments made by the drafting arbitrators in accordance with the Committee's decision take effect. Any editors interested in the implementation process are invited to assist at the implementation talk page, and editors interested in updates may subscribe to the update list.

For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:47, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Discuss this at: 

Newimpartial
, I would like to respond to your questions/comments last made in the section on your talk page I had opened under the heading [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Newimpartial&oldid=1131866157#Disruptive_editing? User talk:Newimpartial#Disruptive editing] I still hope we can learn something from our misunderstandings, but after this perplexing action I feel it is necessary to maintain strict boundaries with you, so you are now banned from my talk page. You may respond to me on yours if you like.

I felt that our main dispute is the interpretation of my statement "gender is based on gender roles", and your accusations of gaslighting (#Disrupting editing link above) when I tried to clarify that I did not mean that gender was only based on gender roles. I did not intend to reduce gender to gender roles. I don't know that we can constructively discuss this again until we discuss our dynamics. I will respond to your other comments.


 * My understanding is that you find my participation on certain Talk pages (including this one) combative, sometimes unreflective, and condescending in tone. I would guess that you feel that I sometimes construe your words uncharitably out of a (conscious or unconscious) drive to "win" an argument rather than to understand what you are saying. My sense is also that you believe I have an inappropriate confidence in what I believe that I know and in the judgements I make based on that knowledge. Please let me know what I got wrong just there, and what I left out.
 * Yes, I agree with those things, but I don't know whether you have an appropriate level of confidence in your knowledge of content, because you have often not provided evidence for your assertions. I do feel that you have an inappropriate level of confidence in how you view the conduct of others and yourself.
 * I feel like you have a pattern of making nonconstructive criticism which has the effect of stonewalling, intentionally or not. I feel like you tell people they are wrong without telling them what is right, and sometimes say what is wrong without responding to the intention behind a question or comment. We could discuss specific examples of these patterns if you would like to engage in the same self-criticism you've stated that you engage in regarding content. Kolya Butternut (talk) 23:26, 7 January 2023 (UTC) Kolya Butternut (talk) 23:29, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

, I'm sorry if I gave you the impression I was not interested in discussing my actions in addition to yours. As I said previously on your talk page, I was admitting that I was wrong when I misused the word misrepresenting due to misunderstanding its connotation,  and I have have been trying to be as precise as possible with my language. I recognize that I have failed to be as precise as I could have been and that has led to conflict.
 * I get that you don't think gender is only based on gender roles. I never thought you did. I am not able to fully see and acknowledge this as a dynamic in which [I] played a part because I am as confused as ever about that interaction. I am acknowledging that I failed to be as precise as I could have been in articulating my position. I am not accusing you of a rhetorical trick.
 * I am not saying that I don't trust your epistemological judgement about GENSEX. I am saying that I don't know what you know, and I would expect sources from anyone regardless of their expertise.
 * I disagree with your accusation that I engaged in questioning [your] good faith, moving the goalposts and tit-for-tat WP:POINT scoring. Was it my use of the word (un)charitable that led you to believe I was questioning your good faith? As I said on your talk page, it is possible that my choice of the word uncharitable is imprecise or nonstandard, but when you used that word too  I thought we were on the same page. Kolya Butternut (talk) 01:36, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Look, I get that you don't think gender is only based on gender roles. I never thought you did. Your insistence that gender is based on gender roles among other things is a fine qualifier, but making that assertion as though it was something you had said previously ... 
 * This is a major point of confusion for me. You don't think I ever thought gender is only based on gender roles, but say that I was gaslighting when I said that what I was arguing was that gender is based on gender roles among other things? I don't understand how those two things go together. Kolya Butternut (talk) 01:48, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

You cited my comment: Let's not go down that rabbit hole. Please focus on content, not contributor as evidence of an AGF violation? I don't understand that. I felt that you were criticizing me, but I don't see how that is accusing you of bad faith.

Your explanation of your accusations of gaslighting continues to be impenetrable. You just now stated: My interpretation was caveat-agnostic, referring to my Talk:Gender comments: gender is based on gender roles vs Gender is based on gender roles, among other things.

You previously stated: As far as the main dispute goes, I simply disagree that your assertion that gender is based on gender roles has any applicability in 21st-century understandings of gender. So whenever I see you proposing article text or reasoning based on this assertion, I push back. It sounds like you're arguing against my assertion which you now say I didn't make? I am so confused. Kolya Butternut (talk) 02:54, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Your point:
 * [A]sserting or implying that another editor is concentrating on you (the contributor), and not onyour contribution - without any evidence they are doing so, and I wasn't - is an AGF vio.
 * That is not my understanding of policy. WP:AGF states in part: Nor does assuming good faith prohibit discussion and criticism, as even editors who try to improve Wikipedia may not have the information or skills necessary to succeed in their good-faith goals. Rather, editors should not attribute the actions being criticized to malice unless there is specific evidence of such. I did not attribute your comments to malice, therefore I did not violate AGF. I quoted the beginning of your comment, I also note that..., where you said It always seems funny to me when goal posts move like that.  This was where I felt you were focusing on the contributor.

On your second point, I am not finding consistency. What I do find is what feels like a disruptive focus on precision (not that it is sound). I feel like if I am imprecise, it benefits you, and when you are imprecise, it benefits you.

It would be helpful to look at more simple examples where we can discuss our behavior. For instance, when I added the section to your talk page Disruptive editing, you added a question mark to the title. After I neutrally noted that you had added the question mark, you stated Adding a question mark to a subject heading you added on my Talk is entirely compliant with the Talk page guidelines, as I believe you know. This is the sort of comment which I find to be disruptive because it feels hostile and like a strawman argument (not to say that strawmanning was intentional). I feel like you often make comments like these which are critical and derail discussion. I felt that it was important to note for the record that my title was altered. Kolya Butternut (talk) 05:50, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

In response to your comment,
 * I did not say it was hostile for [you] to change the heading. I was describing what feels like hostility in your comment. This was my subjective experience of being uncomfortable. This is where I am asking you to empathize with my experience and imagine why I felt uncomfortable. My emotional experience is valid regardless of whether you did anything wrong.
 * Are you acknowledging that you were wrong when you accused me of an AGF violation? At Talk:Gender you confirmed that you were commenting on me as a contributor when you said: strikes me as a potential behavioural issue, as highlighted below in the discussion excerpt. See WP:TPG. When I complained about this criticism I did not accuse you of malice.

I also note that in the original version of your reply, '''you were allowing a worked example to stand in for the interpretation of policy, but now you appear to be asking for both. It always seems funny to me when goal posts move like that.''' Newimpartial (talk) 03:10, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I also note that..., Let's not go down that rabbit hole. Please focus on content, not contributor. You're inaccurately representing what I was communicating. I was referring back to my 02:42, 6 January comment above. An example will do as a start. Be charitable please.
 * I don't find Knowledge to be a strong example. That lead was just added last August after a short discussion and the can be defined as language was not a focus. Kolya Butternut (talk) 03:25, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Asking for an example, and then rejecting the example for reasons that have nothing to do with your own original criteria, strikes me as a potential behavioural issue - if this was your idea of the start of a discussion, then let's not start.
 * I promise that, per WP:SATISFY, I am not going to come up with a series of examples to fit your evolving requirements. That way madness lies, IME. Newimpartial (talk) 03:39, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Also, noting that you shifted the goal posts from your original comment - to which my original reply was lost in an edit conflict - to your revised comment, is a comment on your contributions and not on you as a contributor. I am not the one who is inappropriately personalizing the discussion in that instance. By contrast, your Be charitable please crosses the line into WP:ASPERSIONS, IMO (and that is also a comment on the contribution). Newimpartial (talk) 03:44, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Excerpt diff


 * [Y]ou still refuse to examine your own actions. I assume your comment mostly refers to your accusation of gaslighting. I have examined and reexamined this accusation, but I am not seeing it. This is something we'd need a third party to evaluate, but there are plenty of other disagreements which we've had where we could attempt to find understanding. Kolya Butternut (talk) 13:52, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

In response to your comment:
 * [Y]ou characterize your edit history in ways that are unsupported by your edits themselves. I did not characterize my edit history; I characterized my argument.
 * In the collapsed Talk:Gender excerpt above, I highlighted your comment: "you were allowing a worked example to stand in for the interpretation of policy, but now you appear to be asking for both. It always seems funny to me when goal posts move like that" as an example of you commenting on me as a contributor, which you said before you banned me from your talk page.
 * [A]re there other comments that I have made about behaviour that have prompted constructive reflection on your part? Please be specific and choose one comment to focus on, preferably an uncomplicated one.
 * The uncomplicated comment I had asked to focus on was when you said Adding a question mark to a subject heading you added on my Talk is entirely compliant with the Talk page guidelines, as I believe you know, discussed above at 05:50, 8 January 2023. You acknowledged: "you clearly did experience my comment as hostile", but I was asking you to empathize with my experience and imagine why I felt uncomfortable, not just the fact that I felt uncomfortable. You stated that you did empathize with me, but I am not hearing that. What I would like is for you to put yourself in my shoes and describe how you think I interpreted your words and felt about them.
 * I feel like the most significant empathy you've given me that I've asked for is when you said: I would guess that you feel that I sometimes construe your words uncharitably out of a (conscious or unconscious) drive to "win" an argument rather than to understand what you are saying. Kolya Butternut (talk) 06:29, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

, I see that has accused you of gaslighting them. Newimpartial also accused me of gaslighting them, as discussed earlier on [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Newimpartial&oldid=1131866157#Disruptive_editing? their talk page] and in this section above. Kolya Butternut (talk) 20:29, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Contentious topics procedure now in effect
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to updates on the Arbitration Committee's contentious topics procedure revision process.

In December, the Arbitration Committee adopted the contentious topics procedure, which replaces the former discretionary sanctions system. The contentious topics procedure is now in effect following an initial implementation period. The drafting arbitrators warmly thank all those who have worked to implement the new procedure during this implementation period and beyond. KevinL ( aka L235 · t · c) 19:44, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
 * For a detailed summary of the changes from the discretionary sanctions system, see WP:DSVSCT.
 * A brief guide for administrators may be found at Contentious topics/Administrator instructions.
 * Updated templates may be found at Template:Contentious topics.
 * Suggestions and concerns may be directed to the arbitration clerk team at WT:AC/C.
 * Discuss this at: 

Of course The Signpost makes corrections
but it all depends on the specifics of the case. In general corrections should be made within a month of the original publication - we present what's known about a specific case as of the publication date. We're not able to track the case over many years and present info about what might have changed, or is only "true" from your subjective viewpoint. In other words you need to fairly quickly show us proof that a correction needs to be made. Feel free to email me with specifics about any article published while I was editor-in-chief (March 2019-March 2022) or about any article I wrote, but the final judgement will be made by the current e-i-c,. But I'd send him a recommendation. Finally, there are topics that I'll refuse to make a recommendation on, e.g. there was one editor who always objected to anything I'd write about his favorite topics, and often his opponents would object as well. There's no point in responding to that type of thing. Smallbones( smalltalk ) 18:08, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
 * That website you referred me to is about as far as possible from being a reliable source. It looks like it is incredibly biased in this case as well. And they have no source to cite. Get back to me when you have proof. Smallbones( smalltalk ) 19:24, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I wasn't suggesting that that is the reliable source. Kolya Butternut (talk) 20:05, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

ANI
Thanks for striking that comment. I appreciate it very much. — Ixtal ( T / C ) &#8258; Non nobis solum. 00:54, 22 February 2023 (UTC)