User talk:Butterscotch Beluga

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

nigh-zero evidence

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a report involving you at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement regarding a possible violation of an Arbitration Committee decision. The thread is Butterscotch Beluga. Thank you. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 23:00, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Here: could you please wiki link (the banned) editors involved? Even editors who follow the IP-area, are unfamiliar with some of them. It is also interesting, wrt those who claim that socking isn't a great problem in the IP area, cheers, Huldra (talk) 23:42, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

No problem. Links have now been added. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 00:03, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a report involving you at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement regarding a possible violation of an Arbitration Committee decision. The thread is Selfstudier. Thank you. Allthemilescombined1 (talk) 02:41, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Hey, when I went to tag you just now, it suggested @Butterscotch 747 and that made me wonder if your name was also a plane reference, and not the whale. If so, thats funny. Would love to see one of those one day ← Metallurgist (talk) 23:58, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

Nah, it's the whale, I don't know anything about planes. I picked it because of the alliteration & general mouthfeel when said. No real meaning behind the name beyond that.

Interesting name for a plane though. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 00:05, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

The Russian language page on Gaza Genocide has a section on the Israeli government's position, so why can't the English language page also have it? Without the Israeli government's position, it would be one-sided article. Queens Historian (talk) 19:39, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

The Israeli government's position is already covered throughout the article & should continue to be written that way. It both reads better to have data & accusations followed by dissenting perspectives & is a more fair way of presenting the Israeli government's position. Their counterarguments are properly contextualized in relevant sections, rather then being excised into an entirely separate section.

The section you added also had massive issues including, MOS:EDITORIAL (terms like "insists" & "treacherously attacked" as well as stating that Hamas "does not recognize Israel's right to exist", a vague phrase with several possible interpretations), MOS:TERRORIST, & unsourced statements or statements exclusively cited to primary sources. How other languages cover this topic is irrelevant as each project has their own distinct rules.

As this pertains to article content, if you seek to further discuss this, please do so on the article talk page. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 20:35, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello Butterscotch Beluga: Enjoy the holiday season and winter solstice if it's occurring in your area of the world, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, Iljhgtn (talk) 18:09, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

Iljhgtn (talk) 18:09, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

Thanks! Happy holidays to you as well! Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 19:09, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

See recent edit I tried to notify you of. NorthernWinds (talk) 20:43, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, that wording seems fine to me. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 01:03, 6 February 2026 (UTC)