User talk:ButterSlipper

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 60 hours for making personal attacks towards other editors. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Acroterion (talk) 11:06, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

ButterSlipper (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log) • SI)

---

Request reason:

Hi admins. I came to Wikipedia because I found it fascinating and a way for me to contribute to a public project for a warm community. I am appealing my block now because I believe the block was unnecessary for preventing disruption on Wikipedia. The allegation that was thrown towards me in a warning was that I was perpetrating personal attacks. There was no evidence offered by Acroterion other than a reference to my conduct with Neutrality. When they had accused me of these attacks and I was genuinely confused. I had tried to reply politely and in good faith as Wikipedia manners go and then I had been blocked, accused of being coy and also accused of continuing hostility towards Neutrality after the warning. Reviewing my latest interaction with Neutrality at the time demonstrates that I was not committing any personal attacks.[1] Please showcase the legitimate personal attacks or violations of Wikipedia's standards I had exercised or undo this block. I only want to support the Wikipedia project. Thank you. ButterSlipper (talk) 11:56, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Decline reason:

This looks like a good block. You were being very hostile using terms like irrational, disgraceful, prejudice, asinine, lazy, and absurd. This seems to be simply because someone did not agree with you.

You were given a clear warning by administrator Acroterion which you responded to by insisting that you were unaware of any transgression.

Not long after that you carried on with words like bias, slander, dodgy, and immature. I want you to read Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a battleground. Simply put you need to handle people disagreeing with you without making it personal. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 12:18, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

• <ec>Blocking admin notes to save everybody reviewing some time:
• Personal attacks prior to warning:
  • , (for which you were warned by another editor, but carried on), , , ,
  • This after my warning, which I removed as an abuse of an article talkpage for personal attacks: ,and which is the proximate cause for your block.
  • And this assumption of bad faith: , along with demands in various locations that other editors cater to your expectations for speedy responses,
• This is a remarkable amount of vituperation for less than a week on Wikipedia. Acroterion (talk) 12:32, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

  (Non-administrator comment) As an uninvolved community member who stumbled upon this, I'm in total support of your actions in this instance, Acroterion. ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 22:48, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

  Hey @Acroterion and HighInBC: The time between when Acroterion had instituted the block and now has instigated a change of heart. I caught up again on some of Wikipedia's suggestions. I now perfectly see where you're coming from and from your pov I'm sure it seems like a vile liar and you would not be wrong for assuming that because my behaviour was repugnant, but I come in good-faith and truly and deeply apologise for the wrongdoings of my actions. Acroterion was right on the bullseye with me being too demanding in the speed of other editors. I was rash and frustrated at the time with the controversial discussions. I have disappointed myself. Wikipedia is not an instant-text messenger app, and for me to demand swiftness is inappropriate. HighInBC had also rightfully called me out for hostility with my terms and I personally admit my language was a plethora of loaded flames I squawked needlessly.

I would like to make clear some points that I misunderstand though. Acroterion in their warning said that I had engaged in personal attacks and I was left dazed. There was not really a specific example given and I would've liked for some elaboration. Of course this isn't a policy or demand but if the same things were to happen again I would like a specific example of when the violation I had committed occurred because I had no time to discuss the allegations and I expect more reason referred to prior to the block for a defamatory allegation like personal attacks. Especially when I view personal attacks as a heinous and depraved action I wholly oppose. This request is obviously a privilege though, I just do not understand why you didn't give the specific examples of inappropriate behaviour.

Another misunderstanding I have is with the allegations of personal attacks by Acroterion. In the cited examples given, there are no personal attacks. If desired, I can go through and thoroughly review each and every one but I will only be reviewing the first two for the sake of brevity. The examples cited only contain attacks of arguments and/or edits. "This [referring to the edit] is a partisan and grotesque silencing of factual criticism. Revert this edit immediately."^[1] is the attack I make on the edit done by Neutrality that you cited as the first example of a personal assault. I can see "you made no effort to argue for any inaccuracies in the valid critiques from the Grayzone articles" being a personal objurgation but I had only stated that Neutrality did not try to explain his reasoning further which was misinformed but still civil to claim because he did not (to my knowledge at the time which was incorrect) make a new section in the talk page to justify his edit. The second citation given, which you state was also notified to be a personal attack by Schazjmd, I believe to be not a personal aggression. I did reply to this accusation and clarified how I was attacking purely the argument.^[2] The rest of the citations are more or less the same to these ones but if you need me to I can provide further clarity on my line of thinking. In summary, attacks of the argument or claims about user's actions were misconstrued as personal attacks but if you have opposing views to my explanation please notify me.

I was also accused of bad-faith by Acroterion which I know for a fact I did not do. The question provided^[3] does seem indeed fishy and disingenuous at first glance and accidentally I did not explain enough which I am sorry for. I can assure you I was only asking about the relationship between the two users because Firefangledfeathers had invited Neutrality to collaborate on a page not too long ago^[4] and for some reason, Firefangledfeathers had known about my accidental violations of Wikipedia's guidelines I had committed on Neutrality's talk page^[5] which I found strange for people who are not friends/had a relationship etc. From an outsider's view, it seems like I was questioning the relationship between the two users to draw a line on why Firefangledfeathers had (thankfully) reverted my horrible edits but I devoutly respect Firefangledfeathers for being such a welcoming and respectful editor I highly appreciate and the question I asked came in good-faith curiosity. Firefangledfeathers had then formally declared that they have no ties outside of working on the Wikipedia.^[6]

While HighInBC was true about the lack of need for hostile language, they had misinterpreted my motivation for the use of it. I did not call Neutrality's edits/arguments irrational, disgraceful, prejudice, asinine, lazy and absurd or any other aggressive vocabulary just because Neutrality's views had opposed mine, but because the edits/arguments were indeed disgraceful, prejudice etc. For example, when I call Neutrality's claims "asinine", I had done so because "[Neutrality's claims] also contradicts and ignores how I substantiated the second website's reasonability"^[7] which does make the claim asinine, although now with more thinking this is immature flaming. I had reason to use those words but I disagree with most of what I said now HighInBC.

I make this message because I want to cleanse my conscious and hopefully have controversies discuss and revolved. I also do not want this dispute to seem like I loathe the named users or you two admins because a lot of you are great contributors to Wikipedia and have taught me so much. I'm unfathomably sorry if we've gotten on a rocky boat or if my character is seen as having "over-the-top vitriol".^[8] The block conducted did in fact reduce disruption on Wikipedia and greatly informed me. I wish everybody a good day and you guys are level-headed and understanding :) ButterSlipper (talk) 01:44, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 01:48, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

While I think you are splitting rhetorical hairs to justify an aggressive set of edits, I appreciate your response. Please remember that blocks are blunt instruments, and the reasoning behind blocks and block templates can cover a great deal more than simple "personal attacks." We don't have a template for "treating Wikipedia as a battleground." We are volunteers, and requests by blocked editors that we provide a detailed statement of charges are often abused by editors who end up wasting volunteer time in demanding what amount to quasi-judicial charging documents.

I appreciate your self-reflection, and I encourage you to help the project out now that your bock has expired. Please try to take things less personally, and when you feel that you are getting irritated with someone, walk away for a while. Acroterion (talk) 02:13, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi Acroterion. I understand that many users gamify Wikipedia and Wikilawyer to advance their goals and end up wasting your time but the accusation that I was treating Wikipedia like a battleground was also false. I was being aggressive to stop disinformation from other users. The block was justified but still not needed in my opinion but the past is in the past and I will take on your great advice. Thank you. ButterSlipper (talk) 04:00, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Also please unblock me Acroterion now. It is multiple hours after the expiration date of my block. ButterSlipper (talk) 04:07, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

ButterSlipper, as a quick technical note: you don't need to link every mention of others' usernames. Doing so will ping them, and generally indicates that you seek their attention or response.

Thanks for the kind words. Now that you're back from your block, I encourage you to put that past dispute behind you. As you continue to collaborate here, consider that forceful language putting down the arguments of others can often be construed to apply to the editors themselves. I'd single out 'partisan' as a descriptor that could theoretically be applied solely to content but is more commonly interpreted as a comment on character. Don't feel you need to respond to this point if you disagree, I am just hopeful you consider it. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 02:22, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Firefangledfeathers. You're so right. I was quick to attack their arguments forgetting how it could be interpreted. I will be more careful with my selection of words in the next time. Also sorry for the ping, I hope it didn't bother you. Thanks. ButterSlipper (talk) 04:00, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

ButterSlipper (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log) • SI)

---

Request reason:

My block has already expired and I have had a discussion with the admin who blocked me let me be unblocked now please 😭 it has been more than 60 hours now. ButterSlipper (talk) 04:22, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Your block has expired, you are no longer blocked. If you are experiencing a block you will have to post the block message you are seeing so we can investigate it. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 04:24, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

It says "Stop hand nuvola.svg You are currently unable to edit Wikipedia due to an autoblock affecting your IP address." HighInBC ButterSlipper (talk) 04:28, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

This blocked user's request to have autoblock on their IP address lifted has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request.

ButterSlipper (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

ButterSlipper (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

---

Block message:

Autoblocked because your IP address was recently used by "ButterSlipper". The reason given for ButterSlipper's block is: "Personal attacks or harassment".

• Blocking administrator: ‪Acroterion‬ (talk • blocks)

---

Decline reason: This account is no longer directly blocked, you should not be getting such a message; you will need to tell us the IP address involved for us to be able to help you. 331dot (talk) 07:59, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

For the record, I have worked to compromise with the blocking admin Acroterion and the expiration has already occurred. ButterSlipper (talk) 07:45, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi 331. The "block id" is 11247682. My IP is 192.168.1.105. ButterSlipper (talk) 08:05, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

That IP address is almost certainly that of your home network and not the one you actually use to connect to the internet. You can use a tool like whatismyip dot com to determine what your actual IP address is. As I said, there is no block on your account anymore to remove, so something else is affecting you. 331dot (talk) 08:15, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Here is the IP I got from googling 61.69.169.84 and there is definitely an issue that exists. If you have an email I an email an image of the message. 331dot ButterSlipper (talk) 08:18, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

There is no block on that IP address. Perhaps the block has not cleared your system; try clearing your browser's cache. 331dot (talk) 08:25, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion but that did not work. Still the same message about an autoblock on my IP. 331dot ButterSlipper (talk) 08:53, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Do you have a VPN in operation? If not, I'm out of ideas, there should be nothing preventing you from editing. 331dot (talk) 08:55, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

I have none active. Are there other authorities I can report this too? 331dot.

Could someone more knowledgable look at this? 331dot (talk) 09:10, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks 331dot x ButterSlipper (talk) 09:12, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Update on the situation! I am free to edit now, thank God 331dot. Thank you for helping and you can delete the template now. ButterSlipper (talk) 11:32, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

You could have as well, but it's okay. Best wishes. 331dot (talk) 12:48, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

My bad I didn't want to remove it without your consent and I thought I would not have authorisation or something but anyways I hope your day goes well 331dot thank you. ButterSlipper (talk) 12:52, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Do not add personal information about other contributors to Wikipedia without their explicit permission, as you did at User talk:Bobfrombrockley. Wikipedia operates on the principle that every contributor has the right to remain completely anonymous. Posting personal information about another user is strictly prohibited under Wikipedia's harassment policy. Wikipedia policy on this issue is strictly enforced and your edits have been reverted and/or suppressed, not least because such information can appear on web searches. Wikipedia's privacy policy is to protect the privacy of every user, including you. Persistently adding personal information about other contributors will result in being blocked from editing. Primefac (talk) 12:32, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Oh sorry, I didn't mean to do that. Could you explain though because the user themself had chosen to expose that information by putting their social medias in their user page that was extremely easy to navigate through with so I don't know how I really doxxed them or revealed personal information since that information was open to begin with. ButterSlipper (talk) 12:43, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Sure. They have put their social media platforms on their talk page, but they have not said who they are. Additionally, I see zero reason why being tagged in a twitter post means the subject material is directly related to anything; it is simply stating "here's something you might be interested, person I tagged". To then go down the route of checking out the article, seeing a different person named, and finding out every detail about their life in order to compare it to the proclivities of an editor on Wikipedia is extremely problematic.

Were you right? I don't know. Does it matter? Absolutely not. Bobfrombrockley has not posted their real-life identity on Wikipedia (or given any sort of "my website" link that obviously provides it), so thus attempting to determine their identity falls afoul of our outing rules.

If you have further questions please let me know. Primefac (talk) 14:49, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Ok, won't do ever again, thanks for telling me. ButterSlipper (talk) 22:48, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Please refrain from using talk pages such as Adrien Zenz for general discussion of the topic or other unrelated topics. They are for discussion related to improving the article in specific ways, based on reliable sources and the project policies and guidelines; they are not for use as a forum or chat room. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. See here for more information. Thank you. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:38, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

In addition please review Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, it is one of the most important things to understand here. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:38, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Just to be clear, BLP applies to talk pages. Doug Weller talk 16:11, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for informing me I must've accidentally skimmed that part. I will revert my message if it hasn't been done yet. :D ButterSlipper (talk) 22:55, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Adrian Zenz. 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:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. 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. Softlavender (talk) 09:45, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Softlavender I am trying to reach a consensus with others but you have unilaterally chosen to edit the page and sanctioning collaboration. Please leave it at what I changed it to before and then once the consensus has been built we can change it to whatever the consensus decides. You are gargling up what I said; use the talk page to discuss edits instead of going on with this behaviour of editing it inappropriately and in contradictory with what the consensus desires (which is what I changed it to because we are still trying to build a consensus). Thank you. ButterSlipper (talk) 09:52, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, discussion pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments, as you did at WP:RSN, is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Even making spelling and grammatical corrections in others' comments is generally frowned upon, as it tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 13:32, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry Mikehawk10 I did not know. Thank you for telling me though I will be more way in the future. ButterSlipper (talk) 01:45, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date. You have shown interest in the Uyghur genocide. Due to past disruption in this topic area, the community has enacted a more stringent set of rules. Any administrator may impose sanctions—such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks—on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic. For additional information, please see the guidance on these sanctions. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Firefangledfeathers (talk) 15:41, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

This was your reply on User:Horse Eye's Back's talk page today. @Acroterion: the block doesn't seem to have made much difference. Doug Weller talk 16:15, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. We seem to be back to wholly inappropriate focus on disparaging or doxxing other editors, rather than on specific, sourced recommendations for article improvement. Some further self-reflection is in order, because if this continues, another block may be warranted, this time much longer or indefinite. The change in your editing behavior needs to stick for longer than a couple of days. Acroterion (talk) 16:58, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Sorry if it seems that way Acroterion. I did not mean to disparage or dox other editors, it was a mistake of me to look too deep in their social media and then bring up possibly personal information. I did not know that was a violation of the harassment policy and I will not do that again. I will try to be more invested in learning about the rules of Wikipedia. ButterSlipper (talk) 00:03, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

I'm just asking for them not to push those allegations that are demonstrably false??? That's not a personal attack. That's not even an attack on the argument; that is just a request. Please stop with the unfounded accusations. ButterSlipper (talk) 22:45, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Are you not aware of WP:AGF? Doug Weller talk 13:21, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

I know that Horse Eye's Back isn't deliberately trying to defame and attack me but I am just asking for them to stop pushing the allegations when they are slander (false + defaming statements). ButterSlipper (talk) 22:15, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

What slander and defamation would you be talking about? That you engaged in personal attacks? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:42, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Horse Eye's Back I have never personally attacked anyone, and if you're talking about our interaction on your talk page then you'd be wrong too because I did not attack Zialater. I have and still say that they were a good-faith editor whether or not that "jives". That is not a personal attack in the slightest. ButterSlipper (talk) 23:54, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

@Horse Eye's Back:. Might be best to disengage now. You are understandably het up. @ButterSlipper: we don't use words like "defame" or "slander" toward one another. Those are more than personal attacks. You are straying into no legal threats territory. I recommend you disengage for now, and read up on the links I've left, as well as WP:AGF. Thanks. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 01:55, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi Deepfriedokra. Sorry for using defame and slander. I didn't mean those in legal terms; sorry for coming off that way. Also thank you for the notice. ButterSlipper (talk) 02:19, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

I see 1. [] 2. [] 3. [] 3 Reverts, in the last 12 hours, and note wp:3rr is not some magic upper limit you have to breach to be edit warring (read wp:editwar, very carefully).Slatersteven (talk) 10:36, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Slatersteven perhaps you should read a bit more carefully too. The actions of Mikehawk10 were demonstrably violations of BLP because the statements they were trying to restore were biased and poorly sourced. Henceforth none of my reverts constituted to 3RR. ButterSlipper (talk) 10:44, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

I did read it, and I disagree with all of the above. So this is now a warning, it is an RS, and you did not have consensus for your changes, thus you edit warred. I count 4 users at RSN who disagree with you, and have said its an RS, that should tell you you are wrong that this is not "poorly sourced".Slatersteven (talk) 10:49, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

The fact that you're measuring consensus based on the number of votes and not policy-based arguments is inaccurate. There are no valid policy-based arguments that the Mikehawk10 opposition have (if you want to count the editors I have refuted each one) and there none of the editors have made solid rebuttals against my policy-based arguments and Culley's (as I write this). I had consensus that Mikehawk10's statement is poorly sourced and biased at the time of those reverts so they do not count towards 3RR. ButterSlipper (talk) 11:04, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

No I am basing it on the number of experienced users who say saying your interpretation of policy is wrong. The Telegraph is an RS, there is nothing contentious about what languages a person can speak, If you revert again I will report you for edit warring, then we can see what the admins think.Slatersteven (talk) 11:15, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

My bad, I accidentally misinterpreted what the noticeboard said. But should we not be measuring based on the validity of arguments? I have provided plentiful evidence that makes that claim questionable to state as fact and there is no point in measuring based on the amount of users because that doesn't actually give us an encyclopedia that gives us what everybody believes to be true. ButterSlipper (talk) 03:32, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Hello ButterSlipper:

1. Please refrain from editing my comments on WP:RSN, as you did here. It's generally considered bad form to do so, since you're changing the words that are attributed to me by my signature.
2. Please tag me if you're going to accuse me of taking actions in violation of WP:BLP so I don't have to accidentally discover these sorts of things. It's common courtesy to not talk behind people's backs on these sorts of things.
3. It seems that your notion that what I did constitutes a BLP violation is rather bold, and it relies upon the article from The Telegraph being not considered reliable. But you need to actually substantiate this, and so far, there has really not been any evidence to substantiate it. Again, are there any reliable sources that cut the other way on his language ability? If you have them, I'd be perfectly willing to take a look, but I really don't see any strong evidence as viewed in light of community consensuses and Wikipedia's policies and guidelines that would substantiate the counterargument here.

— Mikehawk10 (talk) 14:03, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Mikehawk10 Slatersteven Mikehawk10 I thought that we had already established that I believe the part of the piece you're trying to cite as fact is unreliable/poorly sourced/violation of BLP/etc. I can bring up past conversations where I've tried to say this but like I don't get the point because I thought it was well-known. You're right it's not good etiquette to talk behind other people's backs about other editors and I should've pinged you. Also I edited your post to add fluently as to not mislead people because it's very clear that I'm arguing for that and I'm sorry for not consulting you I now know not to do that again and Slatersteven it's not just about whether Adrian Zenz can speak Mandarin Chinese it's whether or not he can fluently too as The Telegraph reports and and I have summated enough evidence to prove that Adrian Zenz being able to speak Mandarin Chinese fluently is poorly sourced relying on the The Telegraph article. This claim qualifies as extraordinary because no other mainstream/reliable publications have picked up on it (well any found ones) which is more than enough to say it's not appropriate for a BLP and The Telegraph doesn't provide a primary source (e.g. a statement from Zenz) corroborating their claim that he can speak fluently so including this claim as fact is not correct for a BLP. ButterSlipper (talk) 00:53, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Slatersteven I forgot to mention WP:TALKDONTREVERT. It says that in determining consensus, we should analyse the strength and validity of each argument. Consensus is not based on the number of dogpiling users who rehash similar arguments. ButterSlipper (talk) 04:48, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

On September 7th you were given notice of the general sanctions in place on the topic of the Uyghur genocide. Since then you have been engaging in pushing a point of view and clear cute edit warring related to this topic.

The community came to a consensus to implement these general sanctions due to trouble in this topic area. They wanted the existing rules of Wikipedia held to a higher standard. This means that rules are enforced strictly in this topic. The notice you were given on the 7th means you are aware of these sanctions are held to them. You can see details here: Wikipedia:General sanctions/Uyghur genocide.

Your behavior already justifies action in this area but I am instead giving you this warning.

Further disruption at the topic of the "Uyghur genocide", broadly construed, will result in a discretionary sanction action ranging from a block to a topic ban from the area. This warning covers any disruptive behavior in the topic area and not just behavior that has already taken place or mentioned here. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 02:49, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

HighInBC I understand the restrictions and I did get the notice thank you, but where have I POV-pushed? And I reverted edits clearly violating BLP policy. The claim that was being added as fact by Mikehawk10 was not a confirmed and verified statement so I had to revert it. There is still a consensus being built on the topic and that is why I created a middleground. I have only exercised edits that have been pushing for a neutral and factual Wikipedia. ButterSlipper (talk) 03:02, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

A further note on your conduct toward other editors: it's best to have clean hands when accusing others of personal attacks; it's been only four days since your block expired for personal attacks, assumptions of bad faith, and personalization of disputes. Did you see my comments up the page concerning your edit-warring and swipes at other editors yesterday evening? For at least the fourth time, stop treating discussions with other editors as personalized conflicts. Momentary contrition followed by renewed boundary-pushing is growing wearisome. Acroterion (talk) 02:55, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Acroterion I still have the contrition and where have I done personal attacks and assumptions of bad faith? I have rightfully accused others of personal attacks because that's what they are. They're saying I'm a pro-China FUD and stuff that is so not in the spirit of Wikipedia. While it may seem like I'm engaging in an edit war, I am reverting rightfully to maintain neutrality on the Wikipedia article while there is a consensus being formed on a BLP page which is an exemption of the 3RR policy. ButterSlipper (talk) 03:07, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

WP:NOT3RR lists all of the exemptions to 3RR, note that there is no such exemption as the one you just mentioned. Also please note that the article Adrian Zenz is now under a WP:1RR rule. This means that no edit warring at all will be tolerated, a single revert per day is allowed. Please note this is not an allowance of 1 revert per day but rather a hard limit. You can still be found to be edit warring if you engage in slow motion edit warring by reverting once a day. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 03:21, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

HighInBC thank you for telling me about the 1RR rule but WP:NOT3RR says "Removing contentious material that is libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced according to Wikipedia's biographies of living persons (BLP) policy", so yes my reverts were exempt from the 3RR policy. ButterSlipper (talk) 03:25, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Changing "He is a fluent speaker of Mandarin Chinese" to "The Telegraph says he's a fluent speaker of Mandarin Chinese" is nothing of the sort. It is not libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced, nor did your change alter such a state.

If you find yourself subject to a sanction any appeal will not accept your peculiar interpretation of policy as an excuse. In fact such novel and incorrect interpretations of policy are typically seen as justifying action rather than excusing the need for it. It is up to you to correctly interpret policies in this area, if you find yourself unable to do so I recommend you avoid the areas entirely.

I will also take this opportunity to point out the the article is covered by the discretionary sanctions placed on Biographies of Living People which you were notified of on September 2nd. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 04:03, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for notifying me about the discretionary sanctions again HighInBC!! And I will take the time to really flesh out my motivation for the revert that falls under the exemption. My edit that changed "He is a fluent speaker of Mandarin Chinese" into "The Telegraph says he's a fluent speaker of Mandarin Chinese" helped neutralise that part of the article and not use poorly sourced facts (like stating as fact that he's a fluent speaker of Mandarin Chinese) which did facilitate removing biased and poorly sourced material that is contentious (the post on the noticeboard trying to determine consensus still has contention going on). This falls in line with WP:NOT3RR does it not? What do you think? ButterSlipper (talk) 04:20, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

I have already told you what I think, as have others. You just have not accepted it. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 04:28, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi HighInBC please address my points then and please bring evidence (in the form of diffs, etc.) of me ignoring others as you have alleged because I have put in large effort to reply and address counterpoints as I have done to yours. I do not have to accept someone's points if it is wrong or misleading. This accusation from my pov seems to be very mean and not based in reality but I'd like to hear your line of thought. ButterSlipper (talk) 04:34, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

I'll tell you what I think like I said at ANI. As a BLP hawk and WP:BLP/N regular, I feel any editor who turns around BLP which ultimately is about protecting all living persons from harm from poor articles, into a policy which justifies harming living persons; is not welcome here. And that is what you are doing above when you justify your change from '"He is a fluent speaker of Mandarin Chinese" into "The Telegraph says he's a fluent speaker of Mandarin Chinese"' as not only okay but 3RR exempt for BLP reasons. If you're confident the claim is not supported by sources and so removal is justified under BLP, then remove it! Don't attribute something like fluency which is completely dumb as it doesn't help the situation in any way in the absence of some sourced dispute as instead of improving the situation it makes it worse and far more likely to cause harm to the subject. Nil Einne (talk) 08:36, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank you Nil Einne I will do that if this occurs again. I did not know that. ButterSlipper (talk) 08:43, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 08:15, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Your post can be found at: WP:ANI#Concerns about Softlavender by Butterslipper. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 08:15, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

You have now been told by multiple experienced editors and by multiple admins you are in the wrong. You now need to take that onboard if you are to avoid a block.Slatersteven (talk) 10:21, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

You need to back away and drop the ANI stuff, and start to edit in areas not related to China, right now you are on a straight line to a block, and you need to realize that you need to stop fighting your corner. Just accept you were wrong and walk away.Slatersteven (talk) 11:26, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

I am no longer arguing for my point as I have admitted. And is this discussion not about the ANI and allegations against me? ButterSlipper (talk) 13:23, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Yes in a way that read to me like a dig at those who said you were wrong. You needed to accept that your interpretation of policy was wrong, this reads like you are saying we are wrong but you have to accept it. As to the ANI, you have said about all you can say, you are in fact just digging a hole for yourself by insisting you were right and everyone else was wrong. You need to just accept you were wrong about policy, wrong to edit war and say it will not happen again. You need to start editing in other areas. All of the oppose votes are based on the assumption you can learn (that you will understand you are wrong about almost everything you have said), you need to show you have learned and not just accepted to let us have our way.Slatersteven (talk) 13:28, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi Slatersteven I am not taking a dig at them. I was trying to put emphasis on relevant so that people who aren't apart of this topic do not get so confused. Yes I was wrong and I admit that The Telegraph is reliable in that instance but I do not believe I am wrong in most of what I said on the ANI page. ButterSlipper (talk) 13:37, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Then you need to think more carefully about how you word things, as a simple "I accept the Telegphah is an RS for this information" would have sufficed. As to the ANI there is your problem, you do not think you were wrong, despite the fact multiple users have said you were. As I said, you need to now show you can contribute to building an Encylopedia by editing other topic areas, say food or films.Slatersteven (talk) 13:41, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion to change the header Slatersteven but I still believe I'm right because there has been no fair and correct analysis of my behaviour. I have replied to almost every single comment on the ANI. ButterSlipper (talk) 13:49, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Its not the header, it's your choice of words which reads like an "I accept you are wrong" style of argument. Not replying and being right are not the same thing (after all I am replying to everything you post here right now, am I right?). You need to drop this and move on to editing other things. You need to show you are not here just to push a POV, and you need to do it now. You will be jusdge not on what you say, but hat you do. Start to listen to people's advice and act on it.Slatersteven (talk) 13:54, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Slatersteven why should I stop when they are building an indefinite blocking campaign?? I will more likely be blocked if I don't intervene. Also please explain how I am wrong. ButterSlipper (talk) 11:41, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Read the RSN thread, read everything that had been said to you by every single user who has responded to you, read wp:ididnothearthat. Read the ANI, really its hard to see how much more can be explained to you, that has not already been explained to you. If you are reverted you go to talk and make a case, you do not revert. You listen to what you are being told, rather than insisting that a user with just 3 weeks experience knows more than multiple users with years of experience (each).Slatersteven (talk) 12:49, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

You need to back away from the China topic area and start to edit in less contentious areas more cooperatively. You need to do this now, as in one of your next edits. You need to show you are not a wp:nothere account here to push a wp:pov.Slatersteven (talk) 13:21, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

I have done all of those Slatersteven but I do not get why I should not edit China-related topics. ButterSlipper (talk) 13:39, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

If it were solely up to me? I'd give you a topic-ban of some sort for 6-months, for your own good (to keep you away from the areas, other editors are frustrated with you, about). But alas, it's not solely up to me :( GoodDay (talk) 17:05, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Howdy. Personally, I've no problem with what you have on your userpage, as it's your choice. But, I suspect many editors will be a tad annoyed with the Ben Norton quotation. GoodDay (talk) 08:27, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

I don't think it is against our userpage policy, though I could be mistaken. I tried to look this guy up, but it seems his article was deleted as a non-notable subject, also not seeing a lot written about this guy. Long story short: Some guy doesn't like Wikipedia. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 08:42, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Hopefully, his views of Wikipedia, won't be held against him. GoodDay (talk) 08:45, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

I believe others have posted anti-Wikipedia takes on their user page too and have not gotten blocked for it so it probably won't but it might. ButterSlipper (talk) 08:49, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

HighInBC GoodDay the quote and the other quotes listed are a bit provocative and I know that thank you, but if you don't know essentially Ben Norton is a controversial journalist and wrote a very aggressive rebuttal piece when the news outlet he works at, The Grayzone, was deprecated. I do not agree with the assortment of personal attacks and the cherry picking of arguments in the article, but the single quote there really shook me. I think people should lend more of an ear to The Grayzone editors instead of castigating them as fringe because they have a half-credible half-fallacious case. ButterSlipper (talk) 08:48, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

I thought you were Ben Norton :) GoodDay (talk) 08:50, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

ASDFHSJSADHASDFJAS THAT IS SO FUNNY OMG 😭 I don't really feel like he'd have the time to edit Wikipedia and I think like he would get like his edits wiped out really fast cause he does misconstrue Wikipedia policy a bit in his article. ButterSlipper (talk) 08:55, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Would you mind removing that homophobic slur from your user page? The term "faggot" has a long history of hate and cruelty behind it. I do realize that it has been re-claimed by some gays in real life, but Wikipedia is not the place to make that point, when more often than not, it is still used with disparaging intent to insult gay men and homophobic-bullying of gay boys in schools. To this day, I still find it extremely offensive. Thanks. Isaidnoway (talk) 15:15, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

I know Isaidnoway I have been a subject of bullying too and I am trying to reclaim it but I am so sorry I hope it didn't hurt you too much. ButterSlipper (talk) 02:35, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

You might be interested in the not offensive user boxes at Wikipedia:Userboxes/Life/Sexuality#Sexual_orientation. And as the article to which you in link your homemade user box states that "faggot" is a pejorative, you might want to remove it. Cheers, --Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:20, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

• I've removed it . We don't have to play your games. On the off chance you are not indefinitely blocked at ANI, don't do something like this in the future. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:32, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Thanks TonyBallioni I was sleeping. ButterSlipper (talk) 02:36, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

ButterSlipper. I was going to advice you about that userbox, btw. But, figured you'd eventually hear about it from someone else. Rightly or wrongly, there's quite a few infoboxes that are restricted from userpages. GoodDay (talk) 16:50, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

A request was made for someone to come here and try to help bring some clarity to the situation. As I am completely uninvolved I will try to do this because I hate to see any editor that claims to be here to improve the encyclopedia not be given the chance to talk, listen and learn. Personally, I don't care how you feel about Wikipedia. I could care less what you put on your user page. I have read the AN/I discussion. If you are willing to listen I will try to explain how you can still avoid a block. It does not require a change in your personal beliefs but will include a change in how you edit on Wikipedia. If you are not interested then I will not waste any more of our time. I just want an acknowledgement. I promise to be kind, considerate and understanding. If you acknowledge that you would like help then I ask you to do the same. It is ultimately your choice. My offer stands until you respond or until the conclusion of the AN/I discussion. --ARoseWolf 18:36, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi ARoseWolf thank you for the opportunity but could you please explain how I need to change my editing style? Cheers. ButterSlipper (talk) 02:38, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

You are banned but I will answer for clarities sake. The combative nature of responses to every call for you to evaluate your actions for one. Secondly, the criticism of everyone that disagrees with you and assuming their views are faulty while yours are without reproach. We are all human and the thought that any of us knows everything about everything is a ridiculous position to have. Even on topics where we feel relatively confident we are very knowledgeable we must also allow room for the event we will discover something we had not previously understood or had knowledge of. That may come in the form of our own reading and studying but may also come from the interactions we have with other editors here. Even within subjects I may advocate for I never automatically assume I know more than anyone else here or that my position is so concrete that there is no allowance for shifting should I be presented with compelling evidence. A kinder and softer approach is best sometimes but even when we must "bite" we can do so with humility, understanding and civility. --ARoseWolf 15:22, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

To enforce a community ban (WP:CBAN), you have been site banned indefinitely. The unban procedure is outlined at WP:UNBAN. El_C 13:04, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

El_C it says Bans imposed by the community may be appealed to the community how do I appeal to the community? ButterSlipper (talk) 14:31, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Its in the link, here is is again WP:UNBAN.Slatersteven (talk) 14:33, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) ButterSlipper, write your appeal on this page and I will post it to the admin board on your behalf. El_C 14:36, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

My advice is to wait a minimum of 6 months before trying to appeal this ban. You will be appealing to the same community that just banned you, so it is unlikely to be granted this soon after. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 22:19, 17 September 2021 (UTC)