User talk:Kolya Butternut

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:

• Introduction
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• How to write a great article
• Editor's index to 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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:

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. Stix1776 (talk) 03:43, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

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

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

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)

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

You are making bold, POV pushing edits and I am reverting them with justification in edit summaries. 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)

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)

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

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)

Just FYI: If you change the timestamp on your talk-page comments, it breaks Notifications for people using the subscribe tool. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:11, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

What does that look like and what is the fix? Kolya Butternut (talk) 02:06, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

It looks like this edit, and the fix is to leave the original timestamp alone. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:16, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

Yes I understand that is the edit you are referring to. I am asking what it looks like when it "breaks" Notifications. It doesn't seem proper to make an edit to a comment without updating the timestamp. Kolya Butternut (talk) 03:29, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

When you click the notification, it takes you to the page and shows an error message saying that the comment is no longer there. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:45, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

Maybe if I edit a comment and add a second timestamp that won't happen. Kolya Butternut (talk) 15:29, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

First, I don't think anybody wants you to mess with the timestamps if you're only fixing typos, especially if nobody has replied to your comment yet.

Second, I think that if your new timestamp comes first, so the old one is still at the end of the comment, then that might work. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:59, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

I want to mess with my timestamps, so "anybody" includes me. How about this comment edit? I have used the small signature following the original for years; hopefully it works. Kolya Butternut (talk) 19:29, 16 February 2026 (UTC) Kolya Butternut (talk) 19:31, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

I don't think the formatting matters, but I can tell you that it worked. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:39, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Illegal immigration § Requested move 25 February 2026. Edittttor (talk) 20:35, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

To continue from where we left off at Wikipedia talk:Verifiability#ONUS: add text re both pro and con must support positions?

I wonder whether @Selbstporträt would be interested in checking my logic here. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:06, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Without considering the specific case, I will state directly my primitive conception of the burden of proof: a claim can be added at any time; at any time someone can challenge any claim (i.e. "show me") and that challenge needs to be met; when that challenge is met and the disputant says "that's not enough", we check context: when it's a claim about a living person, the onus is on the claimant to reverse that decision (up to the stone wall); for any other claim, "that's not enough" is itself not enough: the disputant has the burden to "show me" a satisfactory reason to exclude a supported claim. No idea if that's correct, so far that conception worked well, even with (not against!) good masons.

That's just for reliability, which is simpler to establish than say proportionality or relevance. For these I have a less primitive conception, something like a proof of consensus. If the question is not to add a claim but a whole paragraph or work on a whole section, getting consensus is key, and that's everyone's responsibility. The point of contention should be reduced to oblivion, cooperation improving through travails. Most disagreements dissolve themselves over time when they're not reinforced.

With that in mind, let me look at the case. The interpretation for Alice and and Bob looks sound to me. My interpretation is more pragmatic for Chris: he just can't stand there and simply say no. If he's interested in building the text, he should offer something more in return: an alternative version, an editorial perspective, constructive prescriptions, anything. He needs to carry his own weight and to show he cares, otherwise he slows everyone down. That's how I'd feel if I were Chris. I am very biased toward building pages. For living persons, that's even more important: we lose new editors every day after having faced a black knight who guards a page. It's very depressing.

The obligation to add something new to the table can shift rapidly. Once Chris has added something more than a no, then the others are pressured to meet his proposal with counter offers. (Perhaps the burden of consensus is more like a transaction game than a judicial mode.) Let's say that for this time, Chris' refusal is legitimate. If Alice and Bob play dynamically and Chris only says no, he got no chance: he'll get outflanked quite fast, as as soon as he says no a few times, he'll sound like a Knight who says No. (I feel no shame.) One does not simply say no all the time and succeed at the editing game!

I'm quite sure that's not what you asked. I'll look at the playbook more closely tomorrow if you want something with more textual basis than poetic justice. Selbstporträt (talk) 05:35, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing is not accurately conveying what I am talking about. I am not talking about article creation. My starting point is that: The onus to achieve consensus for changes to consensus is on those seeking the change. And I believe this is consistent with the statement that The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. (This was a longstanding sentence at WP:ONUS which was part of a paragraph, not just a single sentence.) You can ignore the rest of what WhatamIdoing said if it is unrelated to this. Kolya Butternut (talk) 12:12, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

If I seemed to have pronounced a judgment in some pending case, I apologize. I clicked on the link, recognized familiar names (not yours), did not read, and tried to answer the question asked without prejudice. I have no idea why this discussion takes place, do not wish to play Apollo's role, and want to see as little Metapedia as possible. Only now do I realize that I basically argued for the proposal. To say I find it fair would add nothing. Reading a bit more, I don't think any negative policy is sufficient, ever: telling what V is not proposes absolutely nothing constructive, and we're here to build things up. The onus should always be on the side trying to tame boldness. Only prudence convinces me otherwise for special cases: BLP, policy, perhaps there's an etc.

Outside fact-checking, onus is the wrong concept. That's the only thing we can truly establish as evidentiary proof. As arguments pro and contra build up in an exchange, we don't know where the onus should be, or even about what exactly. I would almost always put it on the side who shows less cooperation. Suppose you add the claim C on a page. It stays as long as someone challenges it, and C stays after that challenge is met. In every moment of this scenario consensus is involved, in the sense that editors need to discuss C, but they can also switch to D, which would preserve agreeable parts of C, or E, which is an alternative angle. The disputant will either follow up on the proposals, or end collaboration. I have yet to meet anyone who did not respond to a what-would-convince-you? stance productively. At the very least it shows I'm dealing with obduracy.

This should be enough to show that representing consensus as obligationes leads to a dead end. One could argue that reverting conventions render the model obsolete. Perhaps we should talk about impetus, and instead of asking ourselves who has the burden of proof, ask first about the level of proof required, and model the work expected from each party, for editing is more a party game than a parity game. We can't have any fun by saying no all the time! Yours. Selbstporträt (talk) 14:56, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

"Impetus" sounds good to me. Kolya Butternut (talk) 15:07, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

I do not agree that The onus to achieve consensus for changes to consensus is on those seeking the change is consistent with the statement that The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content.

• The article creation story illustrates a limitation of "changes to consensus" rule, namely that there is not always "a consensus", and one cannot "change" something that does not exist.
• The story of Chris removing Alice's sentence "A" illustrates the inconsistency between "those seeking the change" (=Chris) and "those seeking to include disputed content" (=Alice). If these rules were consistent, then they would not produce different answers. But they do produce different answers, so they are not consistent.

WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:55, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Article creation/deletion has its own policy. It does not need to be consistent with Onus. I am not confirming that it is or is not. But Chris is not seeking a change to consensus. Kolya Butternut (talk) 00:51, 11 March 2026 (UTC) Kolya Butternut (talk) 00:57, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

• All policies need to be consistent with each other per WP:PGCONFLICT and common sense. If ONUS is not meant to apply to the content of newly created articles, then it needs to say that. Because the ONUS sentence has no exceptions or limitations, there are no exceptions or limitations to it.
• Chris is trying to change the article. How is change not change?

WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:40, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Chris is not trying to change consensus. Kolya Butternut (talk) 01:48, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

What does "change consensus" mean to you?

Apparently, removing 50% of the article, including the entire contents that were present in the first version, isn't "changing consensus". So what is? WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:12, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

I thought you were talking about an article that has only existed for a few minutes? Kolya Butternut (talk) 03:53, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

The Onus to achieve consensus for changes that lack consensus is on those seeking the change. Kolya Butternut (talk) 04:41, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

The onus to achieve consensus for a change is on those seeking to make a change that lacks consensus. Kolya Butternut (talk) 04:53, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

So you agree there is no contradiction? Kolya Butternut (talk) 20:45, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

No. Alice and Chris disagree about the material that Alice added and Chris removed. Considering only the single sentence in WP:ONUS itself, and not any wider ideas about how Wikipedia works, does ONUS say that Alice has to seek consensus for including sentence "A", or does ONUS say that Chris has to seek consensus for removing sentence "A"? WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:35, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Would this solve the issue?

The Onus to achieve consensus for changes from consensus is on those seeking the change.

If there is a semantic problem can you come up with a solution which describes how things work? Or what would be sentence that describes how things work in every direction? I don't know that a potential contradiction with article creation matters, because your interpretation of onus already contradicts the policy for no consensus with article creation? Kolya Butternut (talk) 11:18, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

No. The behavioral problem to be solved by ONUS is: Alice says Chris has to seek consensus, and Chris says Alice has to seek consensus, and we need to know which one has to do that work.

Acceptable results are:

• Everybody, especially including Alice and Chris, easily agrees that ONUS says Alice has to do the work of seeking consensus.
• Everybody, especially including Alice and Chris, easily agrees that ONUS says Chris has to do the work of seeking consensus.

There are no other acceptable results. They do not have to like the result, but they have to agree on what the result is. The result can be arbitrary (e.g., whoever's name appears first alphabetically, or whoever's account registration date is older), but it must be indisputable. Depending on the concept of a privileged WP:STATUSQUO version is explicitly unacceptable because it produces so many arguments over which version is the privileged one.

Your proposal will result in Alice claiming that her version cannot be a change from consensus because it was first, so Chris has to do the work, and Chris claiming that their version is not a change from consensus because the article is so new, so Alice has to do the work. Therefore: No. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:08, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Depending on the concept of a privileged WP:STATUSQUO version is explicitly unacceptable because it produces so many arguments over which version is the privileged one.

This concern has no bearing on the interpretation of the onus.

But we have specific policies outlined for new articles/article deletions, and changes to biographies. Other than that, our existing policies privilege status quo consensus versions as our only standard. Kolya Butternut (talk) 19:57, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

The whole point of ONUS is to say which editor the onus is being imposed on. The key point is not "well, obviously consensus must be reached somehow or another, but it's probably somebody else's job, or everyone's, which is the same thing". The key point in "The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on editors seeking to include disputed content" is which editor(s) the onus is on. If you are in a dispute over adding/blanking content, and you get to the end of the ONUS sentence, and you can't figure out which one of you has to unwillingly suck it up and start a discussion on the talk page, then ONUS has failed. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:14, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

That's your interpretation, that was not the intention of the policy when it was created. It was just verifiability is not sufficient. Kolya Butternut (talk) 20:15, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

The onus sentence was added two years before you started editing. How do you know what @JzG's intention was? His comments since then (example) favor the easy removal of anything an editor perceives to be garbage, which is not "just" that verifiability is not sufficient. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:34, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

"we rapidly establish that consensus for inclusion exists where removal of long-standing text is obviously capricious." JzG. I'm curious for more of his thoughts on this. Kolya Butternut (talk) 03:28, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

My intent was the removal of cruft, and the prevention of an inappropriate first-mover advantage.

"Oh, but it's always been there" is not an acceptable policy-based rationale for inclusion. It might always have been dross. Guy (help! - typo?) 12:56, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

I see you discussed onus when it was added. Special:Permalink/621368807 Kolya Butternut (talk) 13:55, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

In my experience, people have cited onus to remove well sourced text that has been in an article for over a year because it supports a POV they don't like, and they threaten an RFC, one at a time, over individual sentences. Kolya Butternut (talk) 15:53, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

What makes you feel like an RFC is a threat? WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:49, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

You're missing the point. Kolya Butternut (talk) 00:55, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

You've been saying that a lot recently, but I haven't found that it makes me understand your point any better. Do you think you could explain your point like I'm five? WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:21, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

I haven't found that it makes me understand your point any better.

That's not the point. This is something you are doing that I'm not responsible for. You can run the conversation through AI, and if you still don't understand you can offer interpretations and I can confirm which interpretation is what I intended. You could also ask AI why I might be saying that you are missing the point. Kolya Butternut (talk) 04:42, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

But I'll give you one: an RfC is a threat because it's being threatened. Kolya Butternut (talk) 04:45, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

I've no interest in using AI, and I doubt that it would be helpful.

Looking at the comment I was reacting to, I see the following:

• people have cited onus to remove well sourced text – Yes, cited text can be removed. For uncited text, editors can do a simple WP:CHALLENGE instead. Properly, they ought to name WP:VNOT instead of ONUS when they remove it the first time, and ideally they would give a more specific explanation (e.g., "This is unnecessary"). ONUS is more of a "stop edit-warring this back in", but since the two were in the same paragraph for so long, people may say ONUS when they mean VNOT.
• that has been in an article for over a year – So what if it has? Year-old trash is still trash. Of course, it might not be trash, but that's why the person who thinks it belongs in the article should be making the case for keeping it on the talk page. If it's not trash, the community is good about restoring it when asked.
• because it supports a POV they don't like – This can be irritating, especially if it's particularly blatant or if one favors the opposite POV. However, it's not something we can realistically prevent, and it's not a wholly bad thing. Having Alice scrutinize all of Bob's additions because she doesn't like his POV, and having Bob scrutinize all of Alice's additions because he doesn't like her POV in turn, can result in a stronger article in the end.
• they threaten an RFC – Generally, a threat indicates a fear of harm. But an RFC offers hope for identifying the community's consensus, which is not something that we should fear or expect to be harmed by (assuming that we believe the disputed material is appropriate for the article, compliant with policies, etc.; a UPE scammer might have very good reasons indeed to feel threatened by an RFC). An editor who believes the community would support restoring the content should call their bluff, or even volunteer to start an RFC for them.
• one at a time, over individual sentences – This rarely happens, and when it becomes a behavioral problem, then you can flag it for help at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment or ANI.

WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:32, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

You did not take my clarification into consideration. But lol at ANI. Bad faith people who know what they're doing take years to be stopped. Kolya Butternut (talk) 10:09, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

Does the "clarification" mean your comment that "an RfC is a threat because it's being threatened"?

I thought about it, but I didn't see that it made any difference in the end. It seemed to me like this "threat" sounded like "Oh please, Brer Fox, whatever you do, please don’t throw me into that briar patch RFC." Since an RFC generally comes to the right conclusion, someone could announce that they're intending to use the RFC to demonstrate consensus for doing a [perceived] harm ("threatening an RFC"), but the end result is as likely to harm the article as being thrown into a briar patch is likely to hurt Brer Rabbit.

There are three main possibilities for an RFC in this situation:

1. The community correctly agrees with the threatening editor that the perceived harm is not actually harmful. In which case, "you" lose.
2. The community correctly disagrees with the threatening editor that the perceived harm is not harmful. In which case, "you" win.
3. The community incorrectly agrees with the threatening editor that the perceived harm is not actually harmful. In which case, we all lose.

Since the first two are much more likely, and since good editors want the community's consensus even if the community disagrees with them, then the good editors should normally welcome RFCs. In fact, they might even welcome RFCs so much that they start and advertise the RFC themselves, to avoid the risk that a would-be blanker might post an RFC question that does not fit the spirit of WP:RFCNEUTRAL or that their opponents might fall afoul of Wikipedia:Canvassing rules. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:15, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

You're missing the point. You're focusing on the "RfC", when I am trying to point your attention to the fact that it is "being threatened". I'm asking you to consider that context of working with an editor who is acting in bad faith, rather than the particulars of the RfC. Looking at the comment [you were] reacting to, what could you imagine if you were dealing with an editor who is acting in bad faith who you are unable to bring to ANI, to the attention of an administrator, etc? Kolya Butternut (talk) 19:39, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

Imagine that I'm dealing with a stupid jerk who is trying to exclude well-sourced facts that I believe should be in the article (e.g., information about a business losing a lawsuit or about a flagship product not being effective). Imagine that it's a pure content problem, with everyone technically behaving themselves, so ANI and admin intervention are irrelevant.

Under those circumstances, I'd welcome an RFC with open arms. We'll almost certainly get the content issue resolved one way or the other, and we'll very probably get it resolved my way. (If I had serious doubts about the outcome of that RFC, I should be seriously re-thinking my position.) An RFC is the best way to resolve a content dispute when there's no hope of working productively with the other editor(s). Under these circumstances, "threatening" an RFC is like "threatening" a kid with a trip to the store to get as much candy as they want. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:26, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

I was asking you to imagine what I'm talking about. You're asking me to imagine something you're talking about without showing me you heard me. You're missing the point. Kolya Butternut (talk) 23:42, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

You might have to tell me the point, if it's any more complex than "I'm scared of RFCs". WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:44, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

You're focusing on the "RfC", when I am trying to point your attention to the fact that it is "being threatened". I'm asking you to consider that context of working with an editor who is acting in bad faith, rather than the particulars of the RfC. The point is about the experience with an editor who is weaponizing Onus. It's not about the RfC. The editor is being threatening, disruptive, abusive, etc., but civilly. Kolya Butternut (talk) 23:52, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

Threatening, disruptive, abusive, etc. behavior is not civil.

If the other editor says "I want this content out, and I'm willing to go through [name a dispute resolution process here] to keep it out", then that is not threatening anyone or anything. The other editors might be irritated by their determination (Really? We have to go through this much effort? Why doesn't this jerk just give up and let us have our way already?), but most people don't "feel threatened" when someone says they are going to pursue dispute resolution processes. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:00, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

You're missing the point. The editor is being threatening, disruptive, abusive, etc. with a veneer of civility. Kolya Butternut (talk) 00:07, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

If the editor is being threatening, disruptive, abusive, etc., then the problem is behavioral. Category:Wikipedia behavioral policies and guidelines should be consulted, and behavior should be addressed through behavioral means, such as ANI.

Perhaps your concern is about a situation in which the behavioral problem is not one that the community would recognize as a problem at all. For example, "We're at an impasse, so let's take the next step in the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution process" might be a message that the other editor very much does not want to hear. Are you thinking of that kind of situation? WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:12, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

You keep interpreting things in a way that benefits your argument and in a way that "misses the point", or, fails to empathize. Kolya Butternut (talk) 00:19, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Sure, I can empathize: Someone might be very conflict averse, or dealing with an anxiety disorder (whose basic concept is being afraid when there's rationally nothing to be afraid about), or overwhelmed in their real life. They might come from a culture that values indirect communication. They might, in short, be fundamentally, constitutionally unsuited for engaging in the English Wikipedia's dispute resolution processes.

But none of that is relevant, because it works both ways. We currently say that in case of dispute, Alice has to seek consensus because she wants to keep the disputed material. Alice doesn't like this. She hates having to do this, and it makes her think about quitting Wikipedia altogether.

Let's imagine that we feel sorry for Alice, so we flip the rule. Now Bob comes to us: He's overwhelmed and anxious and just finds the rule demanding that he seek consensus to be very onerous. He says that Alice is threatening him with a big discussion if he doesn't put that content back on the page! He is so upset he actually feels sick to his stomach whenever he sees Wikipedia.

Did flipping the rule help? I don't think so. Making it be the other person's problem does not change the fact that in such a situation, one of them has to do the disagreeable work, and whoever it is, that one will sometimes not want to do it. This will be true even if we switch from an include/exclude rule to a quo/change rule. No matter what the rule is, sometimes somebody's going to be very unhappy with the rule.

If one normally falls on one side or the other (i.e., you are almost always seeking to keep material, or almost always seeking to remove material, or almost always seeking stability, or almost always seeking change), then it would naturally be in your personal best interest to pick whichever rule means that it's always the other guy's job to seek consensus ("your" meaning any editor, not you specifically). But the rule has to be something, or we'll end up with a lot of editors saying "Nuh-uh, it's your job". The include/exclude rule gets less of that than the stable/change rule. Therefore I prefer the include/exclude rule. But the key point for you is that if you're going to be empathetic, remember that no matter what the rule is, there will be someone to pity. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:18, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

You're missing the point. Kolya Butternut (talk) 05:07, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

All right, I give you one: you're failing to cognitively empathize. Kolya Butternut (talk) 05:11, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

We could set the rule four ways:

1. Whoever wants to include it has to get consensus to include.
2. Whoever wants to exclude it has to get consensus to exclude.
3. Whoever wants to change it has to get consensus to change.
4. Whoever wants to keep it the same has to get consensus to keep it the same.

Do you agree with me that any of these humans could find it painful to deal with a person who holds the opposite view?

Do you agree with me that any of these humans are equally likely to find it painful to deal with an opponent? WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:37, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

"Painful"? That sounds like a non sequitur. Where did that come from? Kolya Butternut (talk) 06:37, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Conventionally, one empathizes with painful situations, rather than with pleasant ones. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:57, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

You're missing the point Kolya Butternut (talk) 00:04, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

So you keep saying, but you don't seem to be able to explain what your point actually is.

Do you see my point here, which is that whatever the rule is, someone is going to be stuck doing a job that they don't want to do? WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:28, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

At some point "you're missing the point" has to be interpreted as "I'm not commununicating my point well". Valereee (talk) 00:39, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

You are banned from my talk page. Kolya Butternut (talk) 00:42, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Wow. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:07, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

It was the last straw. Kolya Butternut (talk) 04:02, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Do you see my point here, which is that whatever the rule is, someone is going to be stuck doing a job that they don't want to do? Yeah, sure.

It is not that I am particularly unable to explain my point, it is that you are particularly unable to understand.

When I said that you were failing to cognitively empathize, you responded by discussing empathizing with painful situations. But that fails to acknowledge what cognitive empathy is, which is the intellectual ability to map out another person’s perspective, logic, and intentions. This is broader than merely recognizing emotional distress. Kolya Butternut (talk) 00:42, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

I just spent more than an hour laying out various perspectives, reactions, logical claims, and intentions for those four numbered scenarios, and in one mis-clicked keystroke, I lost it all.

The main result is that I've decided you are conflating "agree with" and "understand". (See also the difference between listening and obeying.) I understand why nobody wants the onus to be on them. I just don't agree that the onus shouldn't be on the person who wants to put (possibly bad) material in front of readers. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:06, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

The main result is that I've decided you are conflating "agree with" and "understand". This is an on-the-nose demonstration of a lack of cognitive empathy. Kolya Butternut (talk) 03:52, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

No, developing a conclusion about someone else's apparent perspective isn't a demonstration of a lack of cognitive empathy. It might be a demonstration of a lack of sympathy for them, but that's different. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:08, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Developing a false conclusion is precisely a demonstration of a lack of cognitive empathy. Kolya Butternut (talk) 04:30, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

I have only your assertion that the conclusion is false, and I have approximately all of recorded history telling me that humans falsely disavow conclusions that are true but unflattering. I'm sure that if you have an ordinary level of cognitive empathy, you will immediately grasp why a bare denial in unconvincing. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:13, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

You have failed to demonstrate cognitive empathy for what I claim is my perspective. Kolya Butternut (talk) 05:39, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

What do you claim to be your perspective?

Can you describe what showing empathy for a perspective looks like, from someone who completely disagrees with that perspective?

For example, if you were talking to a toddler who was screaming for a cookie, then "No" isn't enough to convince them that you understand their desire for a cookie. If you say no, they think the problem is a communication failure instead of a factual disagreement about whether they can have a cookie. After all, toddlers have a lot of communication failures (so this is statistically likely), and if you understood that they were talking about something so obviously wonderful as cookies, then of course you would agree! So since you're not agreeing, as evidenced by the fact they they are not eating a cookie yet, then obviously the most logical problem is that they didn't say the word clearly enough or loudly enough.

I've read that the most developmentally appropriate communication strategy is to repeat their desire first, with enthusiasm, so they understand that you know what they're talking about: "Cookie. Cookie. COOKIE! Baby wants a COOKIE! Cookies taste soooo good! Baby wants a cookie RIGHT NOW!" And then you drop the fake enthusiasm and break their little hearts with the truth: "No cookie. Cookies all gone. No cookie for baby." At that point, the toddler will probably cry, because they understand that they have communicate their desire and still don't get what they want, because life sucks, especially when you're too little to bake cookies yourself.

Now, neither of us are toddlers, but perhaps this example illustrates what I'm trying to get you to tell me. The toddler has a perspective on something, and you convince them that you actually do understand their perspective by saying to them the words that they would say themselves, if only they weren't too young to make complete sentences yet. And then you deliver the bad news, which is that you still do not agree that they can have a cookie right now.

You have a perspective on something. What words could someone say that would convince you that they actually do understand your perspective, even though that person still does not agree with your perspective? WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:12, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

It's been a long time since the Xennial articles, yeah? - Scarpy (talk) 00:15, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

😅 Kolya Butternut (talk) 04:05, 12 March 2026 (UTC)