User talk:Kolya Butternut

Archives

A belated welcome!

Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, Kolya Butternut. I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page, consult Wikipedia:Questions, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there.

Again, welcome! Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 13:26, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My log history

All of the logs which I received as an experienced editor prior to April 2023 are referenced in my Dec 2020 WP:AN appeal.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction

The following sanction now applies to you:

Kolya Butternut (talk · contribs) and SPECIFICO (talk · contribs) are indefinitely prohibited from interacting with, or commenting on, each other anywhere on Wikipedia (subject to the ordinary exceptions).

You have been sanctioned for the reasons provided in response to this AN discussion.

This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate#Final decision and, if applicable, the procedure described at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.

You may appeal this sanction using the process described here. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:00, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For clarity, this sanction replaces the one-way interaction ban which is currently in place. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:00, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

April 2023 block, background discussion

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Please drop the stick

Kolya, as I hinted at my recent closing statement at WP:AN, I believe your recent conduct (and, especially the refusal to drop the stick) regarding Wikipedia:Deceased Wikipedians has been subpar, to say the least. If this continues anymore, you will be blocked for disruptive behavior. Just stop. Abecedare (talk) 00:18, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I understand how asking for a policy to be upheld is disruptive when the content of my inquiry was not addressed. I would suggest that the response from admins/arbs has led to the disruption. Kolya Butternut (talk) 00:20, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I received your email but am not going to engage. You are welcome to email arbcom-en@wikimedia.org if you wish to take this any further (I would advice against it) since they are better equipped to handle non-public information. But any further on-wiki discussion of this will get you blocked. Abecedare (talk) 00:31, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Kolya Butternut, I am a member of editor retention project who is sympathetic to your situation due to my own experience of being blocked in the past, and I would like to offer some support in bringing you back to edit if I can. I know you are unable to respond to this, but I hope the message will reach you and help you find hope in coming back. I could not help but notice that your block seemed somewhat well out of process from my perspective since the block log policy suggests that a block log or talk page notice about your block should contain a link to the discussion if it is a Cban, but at least some kind of an explanation is due in at least one of these places, and there isn't even an entry about it to explain anything at WP:RESTRICT or right here either. I don't know hardly anything about arbcom processes, but I thought there was supposed to be some kind of discussions with motions and voting and all that jazz, which you were denied access to, and seems like a BS way of doing business if you ask me since you have no clue what to defend yourself against or any evidence whatsoever that an arbcom decision was even actually made. I'm also saddened by the fact that when I reviewed the related discussions, I found out that the only editor who was willing to give you the good faith benefit of the doubt was Sideswipe9th in this discussion that was quickly shut down by an admin who sadly had to make a bad faith mention about "shit-stirring" for no good reason. The only useful guidance or direction on policy in that situation was about how that was the wrong venue, and the rest was more or less accusation, and personal opinions about what might and might not occur or make for good law. A similar sad situation occurred in a subsequent discussion where bad faith assumptions were made about you being "unbelievably disrespectful", and being personalized about you having an "unhealthy obsession" with a stern warning that, "you've been told to stop", but again without any guidance or direction on policy, and that discussion was also quickly shut down. In the closure at the requested review which the admin freely admits is just their own personal bad faith opinion that you were just bringing the issue up to "create undue ruckus" is a very sad state of affairs indeed. I don't know what your history was with Flyer, but even if they were right about what they were thinking about your intentions, they handled it very poorly. My policy based advice to you would be to drop the stick because WP:Clean start is a legitimate reason why a user might want to have one account "dead" and start editing fresh under a new account. You might argue over a technicality about whether a person is actually living or not, but technically the only requirements for a clean start are that you quit using your old account, and you don't have any current sanctions against you. Let the dead rest in peace. My advice for requesting an unblock would be to let them know that you were essentially failed by administration to be shown any meaningful policy based guidance to help you understand a good clear useful path to avoiding any disruption, and even if any guidance was offered it was drowned out by personalized accusations, but explain in your words how you have come to an understanding of the reason you were blocked, and why the disruption would stop period. Pro tip: focus way more on yourself than on how administration failed. I sincerely believe they dropped the ball on this, but they are not gonna wanna hear that shit for an unblock request. I hope maybe this will help your case. Good luck to you. Huggums537 (talk) 04:08, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I do need to clear something up here right away. I'm not in any way suggesting Flyer is editing under a new account, but if the admins were right about what this editors intentions were or even if on the other hand this editor happens to be right about what they are claiming, then either way it follows that this editor would need a policy based explanation about why they should drop the stick. I think it is only fair to assume good faith on all sides as far as possible. Huggums537 (talk) 04:26, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kolya, another thing that might be very helpful for you to include in your unblock request is the fact that since the correction you had been requesting did in fact actually get made after your block, this negates the need for you being blocked in the first place since you no longer have any need of bringing the issue up any more since it is now been made a moot point therefore no future disruption is needed to be prevented. Huggums537 (talk) 06:27, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

April 2023

You have been indefinitely blocked by the Arbitration Committee.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, then appeal by emailing the Arbitration Committee (direct address: arbcom-enwikimedia.org).

Administrators: This block may not be modified or lifted without the express prior written consent of the Arbitration Committee. Questions about this block should be directed to the Committee's mailing list.

Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 18:46, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kolya Butternut unblocked

Following a successful appeal to the Arbitration Committee, Kolya Butternut (talk · contribs) is unblocked subject to the following restriction indefinitely, which may be appealed after 12 months have elapsed:

Kolya Butternut may discuss no other editor's undisclosed personal details anywhere. This includes both onwiki as well as any other online location or other Wikimedia-associated offline location.

For the Arbitration Committee, Izno (talk) 17:42, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Kolya Butternut unblocked

Congrats!

Welcome back. Your recent thank for my edit alerted me that you got your editing privileges back. Sorry I haven't been in contact for such a long time. My own editing activities have been very limited due to me pursuing other passions in recent months. However, I do have a complaint about your restrictions that I intend to prepare for discussion at the link that has been provided by ARBCOM above for discussion about your unblock. The link was here: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Kolya Butternut unblocked if you or anyone else watching your page would like to participate. Huggums537 (talk) 15:32, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I totally forgot to make my complaint about your restrictions, but you have doing very well on them, and the time has now passed for you to be able to request they be lifted and your name be removed from the arbitration section on the WP:Editing restrictions page. I think you will have to make an ArbCom request to lift the restrictions, but see your listing on the linked page to be sure. Huggums^{537_voted! (sign🖋️|📞talk)} 07:55, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:48, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of Articles for Deletion

Nomination of White Supremacy Culture for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article White Supremacy Culture is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/White Supremacy Culture until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Bruteforce7700 (talk) 05:04, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The First Time (1981 film) moved to draftspace

Thanks for your contributions to The First Time (1981 film). Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it needs more sources to establish notability. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:08, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's a widely released movie obviously it's notable. You could have added more sources. Kolya Butternut (talk) 15:53, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I messed up the history and now it needs a merge or move. Kolya Butternut (talk) 16:33, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Edit Warring in Anti White Racism Article

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

Points to note:

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

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Stix1776 (talk) 03:43, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Should I bring you to WP:AN/I for POV pushing and removing content you falsely claim can't be checked [1] at an article you said shouldn't exist[2]? Kolya Butternut (talk) 03:56, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You could if you'd like.Stix1776 (talk) 10:48, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You're still continuing to revert without seeking any consensus on the talk page. 3RR is a hard limit, not a speed limit.Stix1776 (talk) 04:38, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just realizing now that you're reverting to keep you're own edit [3]. This is especially bad, as it goes against the spirit of WP:BRD.Stix1776 (talk) 04:44, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You are making bold, POV pushing edits and I am reverting them with justification in edit summaries.[4] You are banned from my talk page for gaslighting. You can continue this conversation on your talk page if you like. Kolya Butternut (talk) 05:32, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Neiman

You kind of hit one of my "trap cards" so to speak with Neiman. I'd almost respect her more if she were a right-wing grifter pretending to be a centrist like Sam Harris. Being a centrist pretending to be a leftist so that she can Nazi-jacket Foucault in defense of Kant (I'm serious, that's her project in that book) is kind of almost worse. Simonm223 (talk) 19:00, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't read her... Kolya Butternut (talk) 19:18, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, don't bother unless you are either looking for low-quality ammunition to plump out an essay criticizing Foucault or unless you believe that the problem with 21st century politics is that it's insufficiently Kantian. Lol. Simonm223 (talk) 19:55, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]