User talk:Kolya Butternut

Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction

The following sanction now applies to you:

ordinary exceptions

).

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

This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an

log of sanctions. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked

for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.

You may appeal this sanction using the process described

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

]

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

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

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

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

@

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

]

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

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