User talk:SashiRolls/The Been

Unblock request

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

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

---

UTRS appeal #19884 was submitted on Nov 28, 2017 21:15:57. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 21:15, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Unblock request

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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

---

Request reason:

An Arb has suggested that I follow the template for appealing that can be found at the en.wp guide to appealing blocks as closely as possible. So here we go:

• State your reason for believing your block was incorrect or for requesting reconsideration.

I do not believe I should still be blocked for WP:NOTHERE. My record of contributions at fr.wp [1], en.wikiversity [2], meta [3], and even simple.wp [4] show that I've been able to improve WMF "knowledge" products while trying to contribute or just learn from meta-reflections and how-tos in more effective places. I have even contributed to en.wp occasionally through people who thought my proposed text was a reasonable improvement and added it in their own name. I have not violated any en.wp rules during the period of my block. Concerning the rest of the accusations in the block record, I will be frank. I do not believe I should have ever been blocked for "harassment and intimidation". That is simply smear.

• Address the blocking administrator's concerns about your conduct (the reason given for your block).

After over a year of being blocked I have still had no further explanation from @GoldenRing: concerning the "harassment and intimidation" claims (no reply to any email in fact, so I stopped trying long ago). If he still stands by his block, I would be happy to hear why.

• Give evidence.

Let's stick to the basics of the affair I was blocked over:

1. I commented at AN/I when Crossswords drew my attention to an incident they had filed (§).
2. I followed a bot notification to an RfC on a page in American politics called "And you are lynching Negroes" which caught my attention. As a result, I was blocked by Dennis Brown on Sagecandor's request (§) for 6 months for "wiki-hounding". Dennis Brown has since defended his block as being "community-based", although I suspect they've realized the error of that (very small) "community" by now, since they've been a regular WO reader in the two years since.
3. After being blocked I learned a fair bit about the history of the en.wp editing environment by reading the critical fora and continued to observe the political sphere. It was no secret that Sagecandor had begun writing a lot of book reports in the weeks before my return, and when I noticed them adding to the en.wp Bibliography of Donald Trump, I thought it wise to try to inform the readers what was going on. I was blocked indefinitely on Sagecandor's request (§) as a result of documenting this on the talk page.
4. It has been suggested to me that a better approach would have been to start an SPI as was done when they returned to en.wp in 2018, after at least a half-dozen people had worked to compile the evidence adduced in that SPI. (§)
5. I have remained interested in Wikipedia and its problems. I wrote an article and compiled a lot of data concerning Wikipedian sourcing § while blocked.
6. In October 2018, the Arbitration Committee removed the second layer of block they had placed on me to solve the problem of the smear about "harrassment and intimidation" being broadcast to anyone who clicked on my user-name.

Again, if Goldenring (§) would like to defend the use of the words harassment & intimidation, I would listen to whatever they had to say, but I think the facts show otherwise. I remember reading in the guidelines not to leave out the background. Essential reading is Cirt's established MO of asking for action against so-called wikihounds on trumped-up charges. (§)

I would be touched if Goldenring would unblock me personally with an edit summary retracting his caricature of straightforward observation as "harassment and intimidation".

Thank you for taking the time to read this request for administrative review of the two blocks that Cirt requested be placed on my account.

— 🍣 SashiRolls (talk) 00:38, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Accept reason:

I have unblocked you per my close of the WP:AN discussion permalinked here. --RL0919 (talk) 04:46, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

• I'm willing to copy this to AN as the original blocking admin is currently inactive and the blocklog specifies appeal to the community/it just came off an arb block. If you're fine with that, let me know. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:56, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

If that's the normal protocol, I have no objection. Thanks. SashiRolls (talk) 01:03, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Copied to AN. On hold until it closes. If another admin closes it, they're free to unblock/decline without consulting me even though my name is in the template. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:18, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. Unsurprisingly, some old "friends" have shown up to say things like: "I'm gonna have to go with decline just because I don't see any acknowledgement of the behavior that led to the block". It is interesting to note that after I've spent several hours compiling all the necessary links for people to study the case fairly, one fellow who was just today reprimanded concerning chronic incivility can't even be bothered to write out all of his words properly in order to try to sway the crowd, and another copies a link that I'd already provided, trying to give it more importance than the very clear evidence that Sagecandor/Cirt has, for years, chased after people with false claims of wikihounding and harassment (§). As a point of fact, I did in fact acknowledge that the behavior that led to my block was: a former sysop violating their topic ban by socking and clamoring for those who realized it to be blocked. I'm not sure that anything further needs to be added. Meanwhile no evidence of harrassment or of intimidation has been provided by either of the "first responders". — 🍣 SashiRolls (talk) 02:43, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Actually, something does need to be added. I have no possibility of replying to the involved non-admins (Calton, Mpants, & Johnuniq) getting re-involved at the Administrator's Noticeboard. As such, I would request, @TonyBallioni:, that you copy the following to AN, allowing me to respond just once to four people:

I would like to explain the logic to Johnuniq: Sagecandor was a sock of Cirt. Cirt's appeal of their topic ban prohibiting them from editing about politicians and political culture was declined 13-1 the last time it was appealed to ArbCom [5]. Cirt , therefore, had no right to be socking to avoid scrutiny given that there were active sanctions against their account, which they were violating. By extension, they did not have the standing to prosecute anyone for noticing their highly abnormal editing patterns which -- as it turns out, again -- violated active sanctions.

As for assurances / pact of non-aggression: I have no intention of tracking down any more socking sysops, nor do I intend to lay down evidence of any further wrong-doings by anyone in the inner cabal, not to worry. I'm just giving en.wp a chance to fix an embarrassing mistake it has had made for it by an absentee sysop/clerk.

So far, this thread includes no DIFFs showing any harassment or intimidation of Sagecandor whatsoever and plenty of DIFFs showing Sagecandor/Cirt falsely crying "wiki-hounding/harassment/intimidation" (the link provided above leads to dozens of examples of it). I look forward to this request being studied in depth by an uninvolved administrator here at the Administrator's Noticeboard, because I would really like someone to reply with evidence rather than just per Haps -- who provided no DIFFS -- or from half-forgotten memories of a case they never understood had been brought by a scrutiny-evading sock with quite a reputation... (i.e. quite a way to be welcomed to Wikipedia). By the way, Calton, MPants & Johnuniq, nice to see you again. ^^ — 🍣 SashiRolls (talk) 06:14, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

I appreciate you giving me this opportunity to respond to the comments made and to clarify the logic of my appeal and to clarify that I have no intention of rupturing anything (promise). Sorry I had to get you involved again, I didn't expect the discussion at AN to be dominated by folks who have never passed an RfA. SashiRolls (talk) 06:14, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

(copied over) GorillaWarfare (talk) 08:07, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Your anagrams are just so much cooler than mine! Thanks. Also, reading what you just wrote about the Twitter harassment you've endured does irritate me, and not just for the selfish reason that I'm being thrown into the same boat as people who actually *do* harass. SashiRolls (talk) 08:57, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

If I ever get blocked, the admins can look out for users named "Aria Feral Growl", "Rage Flail Arrow", "Earwig Fall Roar", and "A Feral Air Growl". GorillaWarfare (talk) 09:16, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, GW for copying this. I was asleep. Sashi, feel free to ping me in the future if you need anything copied. If I’m online, I’ll do it. TonyBallioni (talk) 11:50, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks @TonyBallioni:. Sleep is good. I've had some too, though less than perhaps I should have since I'm finally appealing and that is a little exciting, though it really shouldn't be. :) At some point, I think it would be good to reassure Ivan Vector (who doesn't know me) that I am neither a crusader nor a creep. Would you be willing to copy this over to respond to his comments?

I would like to reassure Ivan Vector that I have no intention of going on any crusades and bear no grudges against anyone. Contrary to what you said, I do not think I have some mission to "save" Wikipedia or that it would even be possible for one person to do such a thing. I'm not a hasten-the-day agent trying to get myself embedded in plain sight into Wikipedia. I've already told ArbCom that I have learned that the high-conflict political pages are probably best avoided entirely (not only for the peace of the project, but for my own peace of mind). There are just too many people with too many divergent viewpoints to act efficiently in that area. Some people I respect would probably consider this laziness, but such is life. I've had more than enough of wiki-drama.

On the other hand, I do have an avid interest in learning, and en.wp is a place from which I've learned a lot, on many levels. It is a tool I've used regularly for over a decade -- entirely unnoticed for about 10 years (§: the first account I lost my password to) -- prior to recent events in US politics. Not really having had the time or the competence/expertise to edit well during that period (which was much more permissive of OR than en.wp is today), it was only in 2016 that I dipped into the conflictual areas and began rigorously learning the citation templates. I sometimes have been known to just lurk in the background and help people who like to move more quickly by helping them format references properly. I generally am most interested in the reference sections of articles (since that's where all the facts come from) and like to give scholars / journalists credit by including their names in the citation templates. It's important to give credit where it is due.

I can also help the project by copy-editing (in two languages) and note that there is a lot of fr -> en.wp translation work that I could dig into. In terms of writing: I have been working on improving my synthetic skills, because I have an annoying tendency of trying to pack too much into a sentence. As a general rule, I like to think of the reader. I have not created 1000s of articles, just one in fact (in both French and English), as well as an unpretentious English phonology page at wikiversity. I am here offering to help improve en.wp in a minor way. I look forward to continuing to learn in that process.

For reference here are some of my last content edits to en.wp, written in the hours before being indefinitely blocked as WP:NOTHERE [6]. Some other long-standing contributions can be found in this section. I appreciated the research I found on that page. I find it fascinating that Choctaw, Mobilian Jargon, Yoruba, and the Bostonian press were all probably involved in the spread of the new word OK, and had no idea of that before I started looking through the assembled documents in that en.wp entry (some of which had been deleted, others not). So, OK. I'll try not to soapbox, but I did want to acknowledge that I'd heard your concerns, I.V., and to respond to them. I am neither a crusader trying to convert "infidels", nor a creep. SashiRolls (talk) 17:39, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

 Done TonyBallioni (talk) 19:07, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm sorry to bother you again, @TonyBallioni:, I hadn't even thanked you for the last transfer yet, and already MPants is quite adamant that he wants attention. What do you think of this reply Tony? My difficulty is that I know there is a small group that nothing I write will convince. Should I just leave the response here as a talkpage comment or do you think it should be copied over there to satisfy his demands? I could also just send a private message to his account at WPO containing the same words, but he seems to want me to perform a public ritual...

@MjolnirPants:: you seem to be signifying rather adamantly that I need to respond to you, so I will. Still, I don't think there's any context of violent disagreement here to lead you into such strong language use. I would ask you to consider listening to the community's repeated requests that you tone your "absolute freedom to curse" line down. This is probably a lost battle, but at least permit me not to join in your fun.

It would also help me to know what it is exactly that you want me to identify as blameworthy in my contribution history. Would I be correct in assuming you would like me to mention that I noted some information about how much a particular donor/contractor was paid during the election? That is a matter of public record. Juxtaposing that story with the AE railroad line I'd just been pushed into by Mr. Cirt and saying the two stories might "even be loosely related based on political affiliation and strategy" (§)?

Perhaps, looking backwards rather than forwards, it would have been wiser not to suggest such things to the Signpost. At the time, I didn't know that Bishonen's dragons eat that paper as soon as it comes. Housepets with such fire in their bellies probably would just be belching and cursing and otherwise making a nuisance of themselves should unexpected strangers pop in.

Back then, I tried to be graceful under pressure and carefully state that the two stories were only very loosely related, but I fear that by juxtaposing them, I annoyed a lot of people anyway. In order to vow never to do that again, I have had to repeat the facts above by stating that I once did that. Very backwards-looking, don't you think, MPants? I hope this answers your question sufficiently and I wish you luck in moving on, for you part, with renewed vigor in your continued efforts towards toning down your language. You might consider taking a break from commenting on noticeboards if it is stressing you out. I know I intend to take a good long break from them. SashiRolls (talk) 02:05, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

I think I really should just let MPants reply here if he wants to engage further, no need to copy this over. As far as what Cullen has added, sure, I can agree that looking back I have seen that I was not always as graceful under pressure as I had once thought, especially during the earliest days of editing in July-Sept. 2016. That was more than two years ago. I have indeed learned quite a bit since then, which would have helped me better understand what is indeed a very singular internet environment with very particular rules (with special forbidden words ("spin") & discouraged practices (like exchanging PMs to resolve/de-escalate disagreements rather than always everywhere being "on stage"). SashiRolls (talk) 02:38, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, I was doing some CU stuff and then got distracted by something at home. Yeah, I think letting MPants respond here likely makes the most sense. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:07, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Really, the problem you would have needed to address was your tendency to over-personalize discussions and go on the attack against other user who disagree with you. I mean, you basically alleged that everyone who opposed you at the AE case held a grudge against you, and that's just obviously not true. And had you responded to admitting to that and promising to work on it, I'd have responded by posting a diff to me striking my oppose !vote.

• MPants is quite adamant that he wants attention I never even hinted that you needed to respond to me directly.
• do you think it should be copied over there to satisfy his demands? I never made such a demand.
• you seem to be signifying rather adamantly that I need to respond to you See the top response.
• Still, I don't think there's any context of violent disagreement here to lead you into such strong language use. My use of the word "shit" was not even remotely parsable as anything resembling aggression towards you. Hell, the context in which I used it was to say "if Sashi does this, I'll support their unblock" which you might recognize as the opposite of "violent disagreement".
• I would ask you to consider listening to the community's repeated requests that you tone your "absolute freedom to curse" line down. You have not only grossly (and, given the context, almost certainly intentionally) misrepresented my stance, you have also very badly misread the community's stance.
• This is probably a lost battle, but at least permit me not to join in your fun. I think it's funny that an indeffed user is trying to offer me advice on how to avoid sanctions. Ironic, even. It's certainly condescending in a particular way.
• I wish you luck in moving on, for you part, with renewed vigor in your continued efforts towards toning down your language. I can see literally no point in you saying this. It's just incredibly stupid. You could have responded to me with civility and gotten a civil response back, but instead, you chose to personalize and to go on the attack.

But that's not how you responded. Instead, you responded with a number of (poorly) veiled attacks against me, the last of which serves no purpose except to try and offend me (lol good luck). So yeah, I'm gonna go change my !vote from "oppose" to "strong oppose" and link to this diff as explanation. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 04:13, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

One of the problems that people have who have been exposed to Wikipedia's "dispute resolution" is that it reinforces the (very true) belief that personalization gets noticed. When you've been banned from the site, merely getting notice is difficult and so the first impulse is to want to keep that notice through further engagement of personalities rather than dealing with the topic at hand (unbanning). So, @SashiRolls: assuming that you still want to be unbanned, I think the goal of your unblock request should be to argue that you will try to not be noticed. This is a hard transformation to achieve because Wikipedia is built to encourage personalization. I understand why you are taking the approach you are taking, but I promise you it will only end in you not coming back or being banned very quickly in the future. jps (talk) 10:51, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

--

Could I ask for one more copy over to AN, @TonyBallioni:, if I promise I hope it will be the last?

Thanks to everyone for their encouraging feedback. I will endeavor not to sleuth around, be defensive, turn into an annoying moralist, or even get overly involved in wiki-chat-chat at all. I'll probably take some time in obscure corners to re-acclimate myself to the environment if unblocked. I'm not in any rush to promise a mountain of contributions and deliver a molehill, though. I've been in a lot of "rooms" with different rules of late and so will need to readjust, as mentioned above and on my talk page; so I'll simply try to avoid engaging in some areas. I just thought that I would try to get the block undone now & request that it be recognized in the edit summary that Cirt's use of sockpuppets was a very important part of my block history. That will help me be more at peace with what happened. I'm sure of it. Thanks for all the constructive criticism and support. The support from those I've interacted with since being blocked is particularly appreciated, because I do believe you know me a bit better than those who have not. — 🍣 SashiRolls (talk) 18:31, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

@SashiRolls: I totally get that your moral druthers make you want to ask for outcomes which confirm that you were not wrong about this or that, but asking that admins make declarations to that effect in "edit summaries" (you actually are talking about the log, but no matter) when requesting that they use their tools is going to be looked at as problematic. I'll ask you, if the admin doesn't note the inciting incident at all, does it really matter? To be clear, the likelihood here is that any closing admin is going to make a statement at AN. Presuming this results in an unblock, it will almost certainly contain some criticism of your actions and stern warnings. It may not mention the inciting incident at all. If that's a non-starter for you, and you're going to get upset about that, you're going to end up blocked again very quickly. The question I have for you is, does that matter enough to get blocked again? If not, consider just not making that sort of demand. jps (talk) 18:40, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

 Done TonyBallioni (talk) 18:42, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Woe. How long will this WP:ROPE period in the stocks extend, @TonyBallioni:? I saw you had to see a guy about a BADSITE. Custodial work isn't glamorous, but I imagine you're doing your best to keep up. You were pretty quick and efficient. I'm probably one of the few who actually saw it. I guess I need to reply at AN...

@Tryptofish: & @Alex Shih: have made some strong statements under their breath. I suppose people are expecting a reply which is why this has not been closed as quickly as my previous appearances on noticeboards were. O3000's oversighted comment was not a big deal, my wmf-project handle has always been on my Wikipediocracy posts, so there's no special need to link accounts, but doing so is certainly not a scandal. I did not ask anyone to revdel/oversight anything. At present, it's obvious who I am over there, but if I decided to change names, as is somewhat common here, I wouldn't want people thinking I'd just gone off and left in a huff. Tryptofish: regarding your concerns, I'm guessing you could find some fun anagrams to create accounts to register your dissent should you find fake news about your account on the internet. It didn't appear too many people had challenged anything I found googling your username, & the substantive stuff I read did seem to be sourced to your account. Alex, I've sent you a PM at WPO to find out what exactly you wish to post to clarify what you mean by "enthusiastic outing". You can also just reply here, where you started the conversation.

I've also realized that I don't think I ever mentioned that ArbCom was notified with all of the evidence used in the SPI mentioned above (perhaps with a few minor expressions left out) back in July 2017 on Wednedsday, Nov 29, 2017, 12:50 AM (text sent). And not just by me. Others sent mail in July, 2017 as I understand it from WPO. So yes, Cirt's operation was known at the highest levels for well over a year.

— SashiRolls (talk) 01:59, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

• @TonyBallioni: In light of the comment just above, please take a look at my reaction to it here: [7]. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:35, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

@Tryptofish: I realize that you may have no desire to talk about this, and if that is the case, feel free to ignore this comment completely, but I'm very confused by your response to SashiRolls's comment. From what I have gathered, this person suffers from being an amateur with regards to Wikipedia culture, and I think he thought (incorrectly, on the road to hell) that he was repairing bridges in replying to you. I don't think he realizes that the culture here is to drag the feet when it comes to unblocking/unbanning, and it feels interminable when you're waiting for a decision. Meanwhile, Wikipedia has a culture of shooting first and asking questions later when it comes to kicking people out. In any case, I'm either missing some subtext here or you really object to people searching for information about you online. If the latter is the case, I take his admission to be a naive blunder. (Spending time with other blocked/banned people will make you, unfortunately, gravitate a bit towards the Daniel Brandt style of internet sleuthing which is sorta the opposite of Wikipedia culture, but this is too high-level an analysis to really delve into.) Yeah, SashiRolls needs to learn to shut up. This and the blowup with MjolnirPants are good object lessons. But I also don't know how else he's supposed to learn this. I gather that you think he actually DOES know and is playing games, but I respectfully disagree. jps (talk) 20:17, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

jps, I had to read your comment multiple times before I was sure that I was not, in turn, misunderstanding you, but my opinion is unchanged. You think incorrectly that I object to people searching my username. Not at all, and that has nothing to do with the issues at hand. But if you look at my first comment at AN, not the one in the diff above, but the one just a few lines above it, you will see what I was actually talking about, and why the comment directed at me most certainly is not one of mending bridges. Please feel free to follow up at my user talk, if you do not understand what I am saying here. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:35, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi Sashi, sorry for the late reply: the thread will be closed by an administrator when they feel a consensus has emerged or that no consensus is likely to emerge after enough time has elapsed. Re: the suppression, we don't allow linking to other online profiles unless someone makes an explicit link to an identity on another website themselves. I removed it because you hadn't made an explicit link, and you are entitled to the same protections as any other user on this website. You are of course free to link to any account elsewhere that is yours, and others would also be free to do so at that point on-wiki. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:37, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

@Cullen328:: I expect a convincing explanation from SashiRolls. (source) I will answer you frankly despite the conflicting advice given above that I would be wisest to keep my mouth shut. When Alex says "enthusiastic when it comes to speculating editor's real identities offsite", I know what he is probably talking about (or think I do), but I don't think the average person reading him will and may assume the worst as a result. And given that all sorts of evidence-free and mean things have been said about me while I have had no right to reply (1 | 2), I may indeed be a little sensitive about accusations suggesting that I am up to no good. I am not. The first accusation listed in this paragraph was graciously withdrawn on WPO. The second, well, I guess it was just a contributor blowing off steam. I'll keep my distance from contributors who blow off steam in this way.

Please consider, Cullen328, what it would be like to have no right of reply to what anonymous people say about your account on Wikipedia. I currently have the right to edit my talk page for the first time in over a year. I have used it to respond to concerns raised by others about me (not about articles, the state of the internet, or en.wp governance). On fora, people can make accounts and dispute what they read. Here, not so much. I have been restricted from responding to or appealing serious accusations in my block record, at notice boards, and on talk pages. Saying any more than that I have no interest in fighting with people who have said mean things about me would be violating WP:NAM and my promise not to engage in idle chitchat. Since I have only some hours left to finish cleaning house before family arrives for the Toussaint holiday after a busy month of work, I thank you for your understanding of my brevity. I have answered questions to the best of my ability and would like to rest my !case by referring you to the numerous vows of silences, non-aggression, and polite family friendly speech. I do hope that once this appeal is finished, people will stop asking questions about me that they expect answers to, but will rather be focused on building an encyclopedia. Happy Halloween to all of you!

— 🍣 SashiRolls (talk) 04:27, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Out of respect for your holiday and family visit, I will refrain from a give and take, and instead ponder all that you have written in recent days. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:46, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

.

.

.

.

.

• Thank you for closing the thread at AN and unblocking me @RL0919:. Hearty thanks to those who saw the issue clearly and acted accordingly. SashiRolls (talk) 23:07, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

  Welcome back, and best of luck with your return to editing. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:34, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Edit war warning

Very unwise. Your recent editing history at Syphillis shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.Jytdog (talk) 02:10, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Response to jytdog

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

@Jytdog: The chronology is as follows: I added a standard reference on the subject of the Tuskegee Institute Study in the syphilis entry, pursuant to discussion with Doc James here. You wiped out long-standing content on the article, but did borrow the amply formatted reference to Brandt's article I'd added. I copy-edited the poorly written and referenced lead as you suggested and then followed WP:SYNC as you suggested. I'm not clear why you found this contribution objectionable enough to start this "war" by completely replace the content that has been here for years. Could you explain that? Actually, it doesn't really seem to be related to WP:SYNC concerns. What led you to follow me to that article? SashiRolls (talk) 02:31, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Before you make claims about "following", you should look to see if a person has edited the page before. We can discuss content at the relevant talk pages. Jytdog (talk) 02:53, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

or not. Such are my vows. I don't think I'll wrestle with you over syphilis, jytdog... like you say, that would be unfun. SashiRolls (talk) 03:19, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

So you have decided to continue. Instead of answering the question I asked you here you opened a new section, talking about something that is not the issue.

You are heading directly back toward an indefinite block. Jytdog (talk) 19:14, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Please state your view of the issue clearly. My view of the issue is that you have removed the Brandt reference from the article entirely, as I said. If that is not the issue please restore it to the article (you are certainly free to write the prose as you wish, as anyone is allowed to modify your prose). I would also ask that you remove the redundant blue-links you introduced in the article with your copy/paste as I had done. An article labeled GA should not be treated in this manner. You should at least do due diligence clean-up while waiting for others to comment on the wisdom of your move. SashiRolls (talk) 19:27, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

On top of misrepresenting the edits you made, pointing out spelling mistakes as you did here is just sand-in-gears jerk behavior, that gets in the way of getting collaborative work done. You appear to be determined to burn quickly through the WP:ROPE you were given when you were unblocked. Whatever, they are your editing privileges to lose again. Jytdog (talk) 20:05, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Arby questions

SashiRolls--plz check the diffs/links you posted: as far as I can tell the links for sagec and cirt, for instance, are the same. It could be that I'm crosseyed and hungry after class, but please have another look, before I answer the wrong question or look at the wrong thing. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 18:53, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Done. It only took, what, five six edits to ask you a "simple" question; enough to drive anyone classy-eyed. Enjoy your snack. :) SashiRolls (talk) 19:39, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Email

Hi SashiRolls. Thanks for the kind words in your email. I wish you every success in your renewed career on Wikipedia. A word of advice—I know it's sometimes hard, but try to avoid meta-issues for at least a year and stick to article space and uncontroversial subjects. There's lots of fascinating subjects out there . Best wishes, Voceditenore (talk) 09:30, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

@Voceditenore: I'm confused. I did not email you. (there are only two contributors I've emailed since I've been back: one was Drmies and the other wasn't you). Please help clear up this mystery... by sending me an email through en.WP. — 🍣 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 09:48, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Many apologies, SashiRolls! I've reread the email. The person who sent it to me has a very similar name, and concerned the Arbitration request where we have both participated, but I now realize that he/she is clearly not you. Once again, I'm very sorry for the confusion. Best wishes, Voceditenore (talk) 10:33, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Well, I could say kind words about your sandbox and the many fascinating subjects out there if you'd like. I think I'll file this in the been fairly quickly, but I did want to be sure that no bad crawlers have hijacked my valid-alt @Rosashills: account. Even if the person said nice things, I would still want to be sure it wasn't through any account I operated as my !own, when it had been possessed by Others. No meta issues, for another whole year? ... ;o ... — 🍣 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 11:05, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

This is a courtesy notice to my alter-self to point out that my ping(ouin)ing above was a complete fail. I also appear not to have been hacked. — 🍆 RosasHills ^{t · c} 13:32, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

thanks and welcome back

Hi SashiRolls, thank you for your improvement to Forconi, I had definitely missed that entry. And welcome back to Wikipedia! Dr. Vogel (talk) 10:02, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. (I noticed you fixed that quick addition up nicely.) See you around. — 🍣 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 23:07, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	You've put an amazing amount of brave effort into the Yellow vests movement, an event which has attracted controversy - your patience and humor is also a relief. You need to be recognized for it! Sıgehelmus (Tålk) 22:43, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

L'arrivée d'une Diligence au Tréport

blush: ^^

"Mais Harry à Paris n'a pas eu de chance
On le stoppe sur le périph' avec sa diligence
Puis on le place à Fresnes pour que Fresnes le freine
Victime des directives de ce que l'on appelle
Le nouveau western..."

— MC Solaar (Nouveau Western)

— 🍣 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 23:47, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

heyy Wikicat get your present! Lyaman97 (talk) 10:26, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Uh-oh. What've I done now? — 🍣 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 23:29, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

"Digitization of administration"

Bonjour! :-) Thank you for all your recent work at Yellow vests movement. The article would be a mess without your careful eye and pen. I have a question about your addition of "and the related digitization of administrations" to the infobox after "Austerity measures." I do not understand what "the related digitization of administrations" refers to. The cited source is written in French and quel dommage, mon cerveau est trop petit et ma langue est trop maladroite pour parler français. What does "digitization of administration" refer to? Is it about "outsourcing" of work from people to robots (mechanization of labor)? Thank you in advance for explaining it! Levivich (talk) 03:31, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

In the article, the author talks about how the primary contact with the tax service (in particular) is no longer face-to-face with a tax agent but by email in rural areas (35,000 tax agent positions eliminated in the last 12 years). He says that those not adept at "tax speak" are much less likely to be able to successfully appeal an onerous tax burden (providing data showing that the "classes supérieures" are more successful). In general this is related to the gilets jaunes' complaints about reduction of services in the countryside (post office, train service, tax offices, etc.) It's in the section "Un Ėtat lointain, au service des puissants". Your French looks fine: if you want to see the whole article, the CGT posted a pale photocopy of it. [8] I'm not particularly wedded to that particular infobox line, I just wanted to add something sourced for austerity. Perhaps improved rural government services would be a better way of putting it, since that's in the 42 directives and pretty widely attested...

I asked for semi-protection on the page yesterday. Maybe that will help, I don't know. I haven't looked at the entry today. Thanks for keeping an eye on it. — 🍣 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 10:20, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, but that's not my French, that's Google's. Which is pretty good, but the accent still needs work (still a bit monotonic). Thanks also for the explanation. I made an edit to the infobox changing it to "improved government services for rural areas," and moving that from causes to goals (although I suppose "poor government services in rural areas" could be a goal?). Because I don't speak French, I don't want to Google translate an entire article and then make edits based on that translation...otherwise I'd end up calling them the jaundiced-vest movement. Levivich (talk) 15:40, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

the snoog cries wolf

snoog added two diffs here and a lot of nonsense. I've pared it down to the relevant info: [9][10].

Snoog, if you boast about how stupid other people are on your userpage, expect blowback if you are stealing a journalist's writing without attribution, as in the first diff. You asked RSN people in a discussion I participated in to come to the page on media bias, where I have, as you know, improved the page. why does that annoy you so? SashiRolls ^{t · c} 02:04, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

"stealing a journalist's writing without attribution". That's a blatant lie. I hope you get a thrill from this. It sure is annoying and creepy for me. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 02:19, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Please indicate where the author you quote (Harry McGrath) or his article is linked [here]. While often our historical disagreements have been about your POV editing, another even more frequent problem is your lack of care in contributing. (I actually didn't know for sure you were the one who had added it until you cried wolf here, but since you made a stink about it... this is indeed looking like yet another copyvio, unless you were, as I assume, just being slipshod.) The copyrighted text is 30 December 2018, you are citing an article from 1 March 2018 as its source. Here is the source you wanted: [11] SashiRolls ^{t · c} 02:33, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

The text clearly attributes the quote to a review in the Herald, even if there was a mix-up in links. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 02:49, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

I don't understand why you never take responsibility for your errors, Snoog. Sure, if you want, you didn't make a mistake yourself, there was just a mix-up in the links. Are you saying you should check the links people in your email ring send you more carefully lest you be blamed for copyvio? I have trouble understanding how you made this specific mistake, but since I don't have access to the 1 March 2018 article by Elizabeth Teague which you are (still) citing as a review/reaction to a book that was published in November 2018, I'll let you fix your "mix-up" yourself.

In the same vein, I am amazed that you were able to fight on the Media Bias/Fact Check article for nearly a month without bothering to correct the misspelling of the site owner's name... attention to detail is important, Snoog. More important than hammering the latest DIFF to your user page to boast about how you irritated yet another person with your sloppy editing.

Any chance that you will reflect on the toxicity of your behavior and set a resolution for next year to 1) be more careful & 2) to quit accusing others of misbehavior until you've got your own affairs in order? This would make for a more pleasant 2019. I hope you'll give it a try. Sincerely, SashiRolls ^{t · c} 10:44, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Also, with regard to the original allegations: I note that you followed me to a page you had never edited on Christmas Day. I forgot to write a furious message on your talk page about how you must have been stalking my edits. I *did* notice that with that edit you deleted reference to an essay from a well-known figure because he had it published in Forbes. Strange how that same publication was fine when you wanted to import harsh language into a candidate's BLP back in 2016. SashiRolls ^{t · c} 03:18, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Misclick

Please mark your edits, such as your recent edits to A Thousand Plateaus, as "minor" only if they are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Thank you. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:55, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

I misclicked. My apologies. I did not mean to identify your edit as "vandalism". It was disruptive, however. And the consistent disruption leads to misclicks. Out of curiousity could you provide a link to a major edit I marked as minor below? Thanks. SashiRolls ^{t · c} 23:01, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

There was nothing disruptive about my edit, SashiRolls. You made an addition that was good faith but inappropriate, because it consisted of undue material. It was reasonable of me to remove it, because there was a very clear justification for doing so. You should not have restored the material. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:04, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Your third opinion request

Hello, SashiRolls. I suggest that you rewrite your third opinion request. Third opinion requests need to begin with a link to the section of the article's talk page where the dispute is being held. Your request does not follow that format, which may cause it to be declined. Also, it is too long. Best regards. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:59, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 29

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2018–2019 Sudanese protests, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page AFP (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:20, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

I used to get these all the time until I turned on the "Display links to disambiguation pages in orange" feature at Preferences/Gadgets. Now the bots leave me alone! ^Leviv_ich 15:36, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

That's a good tip, thanks! :) SashiRolls ^{t · c} 22:23, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Category:Foreign influence in national elections has been nominated for discussion

Category:Foreign influence in national elections, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. — JFG ^talk 18:50, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Looks like a good proposal. Thanks for the notification, @JFG:. SashiRolls ^{t · c} 18:59, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

ITN recognition for Sudanese protests (2018–19)

On 24 February 2019, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Sudanese protests (2018–19), which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:11, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

RE AE typewriter

Thanks for letting me know. What made you think you could be "banned" for this though? Fitzcarmalan (talk) 22:42, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Still waiting to see if T. Canens is going to vacate their (bad) decision to grant GMG/TJW 's wish to have me sanctioned for questioning Cirt while he was sockpuppeting. I'm also not sure if the original sentence is meant to be "broadly construed" or if it just means I absolutely can't post something nice about Atsme in her appeal at AE, for example. The weirdest thing was that it was just after posting this request to Mr. Canens that I read that the Dan the Plumber guy who had been accusing me of being some sort of Putin/Assad drone was an LTA sock. I doubt T. Canens will sanction me for reverting my own edit telling you about your typo, but with all the protected sockpuppets and other special cabalistas, I guess you never know. :) SashiRolls ^{t · c} 22:53, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

GMOs: who knew?

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 genetically modified organisms, commercially produced agricultural chemicals and the companies that produce them, broadly construed. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions 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 discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. 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. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:47, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

This is purely informational and a formality because it has been more than a year since the previous notice. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:47, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

@Tryptofish: I figured that you wouldn't be able to resist templating a regular if I edited your "Roundup" page. That's why I cleared off my talk page.

Of course, as per your message, I gather there's nothing wrong with my edits ... you just wanted me to be aware that any changes to your page were likely to lead to cabal rides... did you have a specific problem with my noting that Bayer stock value had lost more than 40% of its value since buying Monsanto, or was it just that which made you think I might be a GMO rebel?  ;) This will be archived shortly unless you have some specific concern; I assume you just wanted to make a fairly vague threat without saying anything groundless. SashiRolls ^{t · c} 21:32, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Yellow Vests

SashiRolls I removed the part about 'mostly men' because I did not see it in the sources. Additionally it struck me as adding an additional factor to the movement in an editorialized intended to lead the reader. Are most protests in Vermont led by men? Is this one more or less than average in including women? How does this percentage differ from the same 'movement' in France? I don't know. Therefore I don't know why it is important. The article you're citing does show a photo of women in the group which raises most of this questions. Simply put I'm not sure why this is essential or worth mentioning in an encyclopedic entry. Regards, Hesperian Nguyen (talk) 17:12, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Don't worry Hesperian. You're right, pulling that bit out of the text was a bit of editorializing that I shouldn't engage in, but it was cherry-picked from the article, promise, I didn't make it up. I thought the contrast between the two photos (young/old | male/female) was quite striking. (§) . I guess I went overboard while being struck. (oops) (I believe I'd also just read the Women in the yellow vests movement page for the first time when I added that line and was possibly ever-so-slightly under its influence...). I do think the question of who is protesting is relevant, but my text ended up being spin ... SashiRolls ^{t · c} 20:11, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

RfA

Your oppose vote at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/RexxS stated that the nominator was a sock. Bishzilla is an alternative account for Bishonen, an administrator. You have two options: (1) strike your vote or (2) state a different reason for opposing the candidate.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:00, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Having been blocked through the efforts of a sockpuppet prosecutor, I'm very touchy about Sock issues. And it says right on Bishzilla's page that she has her own sock to free her from Bishonen's evil control. I believe the comment is a pertinent and light-hearted way to introduce my vote. Are you saying that no humor is allowed? Are you saying WP:LEGITSOCK is not a subclass of WP:SOCK and that Bishzilla is an instance of neither? (trying to learn that Wikidata lingo)... SashiRolls ^{t · c} 21:08, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

I'll give you a little more time, and if you don't choose one of the two options, I will strike your vote myself.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:12, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Like Obama's Syrian "red line" I notice there was no follow through. 109.237.138.36 (talk) 02:34, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Tainted touch!

	Tainted touch!
	Vector of infection. Pudeo (talk) 19:44, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

That's a mummy needs a daisy-may-be-more. 'o.O', I've enjoyed poking around with the protest entries since I've been back. Thanks for that SPI, and even for the mummy (I think). SashiRolls ^{t · c} 23:33, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

I think I got my Halloween and spring greetings mixed up. No, but thanks for all the work and keep digging, you'll never know what kind of mummies will be unearthed. --Pudeo (talk) 11:19, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

An apology

I owe you an apology. I was a bit too quick to notice that you might have a point about Rohrabacher and Putin. It's a very well-documented fact that he is a big friend and defender of both Putin and Russia, and still denies that the Russians hacked the DNC and interfered in the election. He does it to the point that he's under suspicion of being a Russian asset, and House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy even said to colleagues (in a leaked tape): "There's two people I think Putin pays: Rohrabacher and Trump." That part is solid.

Based on that knowledge, and since Putin is often considered a "villain", as in a murderous one, I assumed this was referring to Putin. I forgot that the word "villain" can be applied to much milder versions of nastiness, including considering Assange a villain for his pro-Russia and anti-Hillary actions and betrayals of journalistic principles. I now don't know if the word is being applied to Putin or to Assange in the article, as both are mentioned (Assange) or implied (Russia friendly), but I suspect you're right. My apologies. -- BullRangifer (talk) 19:33, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Don't worry about it, we all make mistakes. I'm still annoyed that I misread the BBC article as implying a chronological order. I also learned something about a politician I didn't know. I would say the "nasty" name-calling and innuendo should cease. Let's stick to facts. Did you know vilain (adj) originally just meant a lower class city dweller / free serf? (§) SashiRolls ^{t · c} 19:55, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

That's what I love about editing here. I learn something every day. -- BullRangifer (talk) 20:46, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

"Kolya Butternut"

SashiRolls, please do not make the baseless accusation against me that I am a "sock" and a liar as you did in your 18:55, 26 April 2019 edit summary at WP:ANI Snooganssnoogans: copyright violations and civility violations when you wrote "let sleeping socks lie" after reverting your edit where you wrote "You're not fooling anyone here, that was no error" Please assume good faith. As soon as I saw that I had made an error I corrected it. [12] The truth is of most importance to me, and besides, it would be silly of me to make an easily verifiable misstatement which would hurt my credibility. Kolya Butternut (talk) 20:43, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

You made a false statement to call me dishonest and provided BS as evidence that you have now admitted was false after I called you out on it. It was the only damning element in your statement. You are bad news. Stay off of my page. SashiRolls ^{t · c} 23:02, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Notice of request for arbitration

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#SashiRolls and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted on most arbitration pages, please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.

Thanks, --Kolya Butternut (talk) 07:51, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Interesting performance art you're engaged in Kolya. I do not think Wikipedia is meant to be used in this way. Cf. this thread at Wikipediocracy, related to the MobCar clarification request linked to in the thread post mentioned and Jimbo's reaction to it. SashiRolls ^{t · c} 16:53, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

A goat for you!

SashiRolls is an ambitious editor of good character, of high caliber, and of healthy mind, and he or she has my enthusiastic, unfettered support, now and forever.

84percent (talk) 03:04, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

- - - - - - o - - - - - -

To quote a young person named Helga: "Thank you for Labor Day goat". I will give her some marshmallows muguet. SashiRolls ^{t · c} 07:43, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

References

SashiRolls case request

This is a courtesy notice that the case request for SashiRolls has been declined by the Arbitration Committee. For more information on why the case was declined, please see the link above. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 18:30, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Notification

[[13]]. You've been notified. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:16, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

As have you. Quit the gaslighting, you three. SashiRolls ^{t · c} 21:28, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

//nb: pertains to this archived case //

Discussion

There is currently an AE case involving you here. Kingofaces43 (talk) 04:43, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Why? Has this got something to do with your BLP issues? I never understood why you and Trypto wanted to delete the "political positions" page for a candidate running for President. (§§) See, watching the page, I saw a lot of mud being slung right onto her BLP. As those who actually argued saw, there was more than enough independent coverage on that page to justify its existence. But the I don't like its carried the day. I wonder why? It might be systemic, don't you think? I see you have agreed, finally, too, that the 1RR was a pretext. Was this just a "get sashi" moment, King? In any case, thank you for notifying me. You allowed me to make a lot of connections I hadn't made before. Cf. SWAPP. So y'all think that the organic folks are full of beans because organic solutions would heat the planet faster? Fine. Put the argument on the page. Maybe someone will write something philosophical about how the agricultural class should be allowed to retire earlier since they've risked more to put food on our table? I don't have all the answers kingo; I wish I did. SashiRolls ^{t · c} 23:40, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

AE decision

A pox on both their houses

The following sanction now applies to you:

An WP:IBAN with User:Tryptofish, which means either of you are subject to an WP:ABAN on articles the other party has edited first.

You have been sanctioned The dispute is at an impasse and the AE complaint is at an excessive length. Something had to be done. this arbitration enforcement request.

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

You may appeal this sanction using the process described here. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. El_C 02:03, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

El_C 02:03, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

An interesting decision. There is nothing in WP:IBAN about being WP:ABANned from articles the other has edited first. Such an interpretation would penalize newer editors / protect editors with vested interests, which is why it's surprising. But, if that's how Wikipedia wants to be seen, that's how it wants to be seen. Nothing I can do about that. ~~ SashiRolls ^{t · c} 02:15, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

@El C: Please reassure me that you are not banning me from BLP/N, RS/N, etc. just because I could not have posted there first. If you are intending to be very literal about this strange preferential treatment, I think I will start writing for a different publication. Are you willing to be interviewed for the first piece?

A normal WP:IBAN, just to be clear, is fine with me. However this special WP:ABAN proviso you've come up with places an undo burden on me, as the newer user, to have to check the history of every article, noticeboard page, or village pump page I edit to be sure the ghost of the user that cannot be named has not been there. This prevents me from voting in RfA, if taken literally. Which is fine, but don't expect me to participate or to refrain from being frank when interviewed about the problems with the Monsanto articles on en.wp.~~ SashiRolls ^{t · c} 02:29, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

I said articles, and it is just meant for the IBAN to stick. Because surely you can't both be editing the same article while under an IBAN. Articles that you have edited first would preclude the other party as well. I had no idea you were the newer editor (are you? that's not made clear), so them having edited more articles is just random as far as I'm concerned. And obviously, we're talking about substantive edits. You're not expected to search through an entire page's history, but if it comes to light that the other party has edited said article substantively, you should be walking away from that article. You can participate on the same project pages but not interact with one another. Basically, I want you to stay away from each other, and am not wanting to go back to AE for squabbles about who should be allowed to edit which article and how an unavoidable interaction happened because you both were editing it. El_C 03:10, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

@El C: I have not been squatting the en.wp GMO articles for years, as was made clear in my evidence. You have effectively offered succor to those who wish to control what the glyphosate article says. By permitting people to lie and bully with impunity at AE, I'm afraid you haven't done en.wp any credibility favors. Churn & burn is the wiki-way, such is life; that's why wiki is dying. Now it's just time for the press to be alerted about that death. Could you estimate the total time you spent on your decision for the record? ~~ SashiRolls ^{t · c} 03:21, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Your battleground mentality does not inspire confidence. And clear is not a word I'd associate with (either of) your evidence. El_C 03:28, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

For the record, El C made 1000+ contributions in the last four days, suggesting this was a very superficial analysis, nowhere near the time invested in presenting the evidence. ~ SashiRolls ^{t · c} 03:41, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Don't talk about the regulars

It's one thing to subject myself to it —I can take it. But a veiled threat to other users that you will "compile an off-wiki list of all the dramaboard GMO cases and recurring actors to help the press get a handle on what is going on" — that will not be tolerated. I warned you already against battleground behaviour. There will not be a third warning. If you have concerns about editing in the GMO area, use resources like NPOVN or COIN to report issues. I have no sympathy for Monsanto, et al. (or the company formerly know as) of all entities, but you can either make threats or be an editor on Wikipedia — you can't do both. El_C 00:15, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Offering to help make a coherent list out of a scattershot filing cabinet (admin archives) is not a threat. ~ SashiRolls ^{t · c} 00:20, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Bolded for emphasis. El_C 00:28, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

and? ~ SashiRolls ^{t · c} 00:33, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

And? Really? El_C 00:34, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

I asked first. :) ~ SashiRolls ^{t · c} 00:39, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Look, this is not inspiring confidence. El_C 00:40, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

No, it isn't. ~ SashiRolls ^{t · c} 00:41, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

This battleground mentality is what I'm talking about. El_C 00:46, 21 May 2019 (UTC){{od}]

It's late El C. I object to being forced to speak wiki instead of natural language. I don't like having rhetorical DSM-5 diagnoses thrown at me. That's what, for me, doesn't inspire confidence. Can we just speak English? It is not "having a battleground mentality" to offer to help in organizing the data in all those messy archives, to shed a little light on a very thorny problem. There is a there there. Ishmael Reed said so. But writin' isn't always fightin'.~ SashiRolls ^{t · c} 01:33, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

This is not open to debate. You will not be making veiled threats about listing "recurring actors" to the press again, or you will be sanctioned. Plain and simple. El_C 01:37, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes, you made that clear. And if you reread the conversation above I have not done so. I will keep my mouth shut. Would you be willing to fix the lack of a 1RR warning on the TPs so that new editors are warned... (cf. your link above)? ~ SashiRolls ^{t · c} 01:51, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

 Done. El_C 02:01, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Tulsi: victim of the same "gotcha journalism" that got Trump elected

Not sure if you would be privy to this piece in your neck of the woods, so thought i'd pass it along: Rolling Stone petrarchan47คุก 21:57, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Petrarachan! I hadn't seen this article; it's good to see that in some corners of the MSM these Daily Beast / NBC hit pieces are being noticed. Gotta' run, but just wanted to say thanks! ~ SashiRolls ^{t · c} 10:21, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

EW, it's MrX!

I have been very patient with your, shall we say, "aggressive" edits on Tulsi Gabbard 2020 presidential campaign, but you are way over 3RR. More troubling, your editing reflects that you have very strong opinions about this subject that I believe is damaging a neutral POV.

I request that you self-revert your fifth revert to this article in the past hour unless you prefer to take your chances at the appropriate notice board. - MrX 🖋 21:40, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

That content was never in the article before you added it in the previous edit. I don't know how I could have reverted it five times? Please explain below. Or be a bully... as you wish. No way will I put that nonsense in the article under my name. ~ SashiRolls ^{t · c} 21:55, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

I didn't say you removed the same content five times. I said you made five reverts. You removed material that I added, five times. You also just violated 1RR at Tulsi Gabbard (your fist revert was this, a few hours ago). I suggest that you self-revert you second revert there as well.- MrX 🖋 22:20, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

I suggest you stop POV-pushing exclusively negative information onto Tulsi Gabbard's BLP. Your "you just violated 1RR" diff is obviously not a revert. I added the other side of the story and fixed blatantly POV prose. Please stop this transparent gaming of DS.~ SashiRolls ^{t · c} 22:46, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Also, if you wish to call that first removal a revert (which is not unreasonable despite the fact that it was not added today), then you were at 8RR on 19 May 2019 (the day you added what I removed today). ~ SashiRolls ^{t · c} 23:30, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

To be clear, you removed ", largely via the same propaganda sources that influenced the 2016 presidential election" and two sources. That's a partial (and substantial) revert. Two of the three sources specifically highlight Russian propaganda, which you effectively now scrubbed from two articles.

If you don't wish to self-revert, I intend to raise these issues at WP:AE, as I believe your edit warring and WP:OWN conduct is harmful.- MrX 🖋 23:34, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

You don't think that accusing someone of being a Russia propaganda candidate is an exceptional BLP claim requiring exceptional sourcing? This is why I removed a duplicate ref (The Independent) reporting on the NBC news story while suggesting she was in David Duke's corner and removed a ref that did not support the exceptional claim. This, while adding two articles directly responding to the article calling it a hit piece. You will need to explain your eight reverts on 19 May and why I am not taking you to AE for that crystal clear violation where there are no possible BLP protection reasons involved. If I were retired / home all day, perhaps I would consider doing so, but I am not. Please stay off my talk page. ~ SashiRolls ^{t · c} 06:57, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#SashiRolls

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#SashiRolls. - MrX 🖋 22:10, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Policing notice: speakers' corner has been re-zoned

The following sanction now applies to you:

You are subject to the sanction listed at User:Awilley/Discretionary sanctions#No personal comments for a period of 1 year.

You have been sanctioned because of the repeated assumptions of bad faith and personal attacks listed here.

This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2#Final decision and, if applicable, the procedure described at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.

You may appeal this sanction using the process described here. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. ~Awilley (talk) 00:09, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Please read the sanction carefully and make sure you understand it, including the section below titled #Instructions for reporting violations, so you know what to do when somebody notifies you that you have violated it. ~Awilley (talk) 00:09, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

This is quite funny. Somebody lies and the person they lie about has their speech fettered. An anonymous pair (the Snoox) smear the reputation of a living person, and the one who makes clear what they are doing has their speech fettered. I will begin to think you might be decent when you place the same notice on Snooganssnoogans talk page. For the moment, you seem as corrupt as those you are aiding and abetting. 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 04:07, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Honestly I don't care much what you think about me, and if you call them Snoox again after being asked not to multiple times I'll block your account. Follow the sanction. It's what you should be doing anyway, and people will take you more seriously when you're not disrupting talk pages by constantly lashing out at your colleagues. ~Awilley (talk) 13:24, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

It's not what I think that matters. It's what is obvious that matters and that is that the GMO crew & the DNC crew are well protected. Please stay off of my talk page.🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 17:45, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Ironic that the mister who started the AE thread was concerned about personal attacks and not staying calm in the American Politics 1932- area has himself used words like this in it. --Pudeo (talk) 19:21, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

MrX games 1RR again

Hello, SashiRolls. You have new messages at Awilley's talk page.
Message added 12:30, 4 June 2019 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

So by correcting the errors you introduced into the article with your two reverts, you have sought to get me into trouble. When are you going to get bored with this childish gaming? Will someone have the intelligence to block you, or will you be allowed to continue to pester people? I do believe I told you to stay off of my TP...🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 17:38, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

This personal attack. Where you accuse MrX of being dishonest and childish for (correctly) saying that you violated 1RR. This doesn't have anything to do with the "no personal comments" sanction above. [[WP:PA|Personal attakcs] are always against Wikipedia policy, and the extra sanction is most definitely not a free pass to make personal attacks against other users on my talk page and then demand that I jump through hoops to ask you to remove them. At some point you need to realize that if you aren't willing to work collaboratively with your fellow editors you will be asked to leave permanently. ~Awilley (talk) 23:58, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Cop a plea or get blocked

Awilley has blocked you temporarily from editing for abuse of editing privileges. 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:

Please don't assume bad faith. I did not call MrX dishonest because he accused me of making a mistake concerning the wiki-rulez, I called MrX dishonest because he said that Taibbi's article does not talk about smear. It does. Demonstrably. As the quotes on the page show. I did call MrX childish for playing a childish game: first revert someone's edit, then when reverted add a tag saying that my contribution was "made up". MrX says "smear" was "not in the source cited" when in fact, there it was, plain as the nose on your face (twice). The strategy of tattling on honest people who have been entrapped by dishonest edits is what is childish. I checked the rulez and realized that this was an effective strategy to get people blocked, so I reverted to follow the rulez being gamed. I'll write elsewhere where people are respectful.🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 00:39, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Request review of unreasonable block

I apologize for my proscribed speech: I should not have ascribed a temporary quality to MrX using an adjective as I did when I said: "Feel free to block MrX for being dishonest". Instead, I should have simply referred explicitly to the false claims he made: MrX #1, MrX #2, the facts. Should they (or anyone else) make false claims in the future, I promise not to say that MrX (or anyone) is "being dishonest" in future, but simply to provide the diffs showing the false claims made as I have done in the preceding sentence. I would remind Awilley they still have not sanctioned SS for [14] or for [15]. Reasonable people might wonder at this double standard. 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 03:45, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm frankly amazed that Awilley and El C have cut you the slack that they have and that you haven't gone back to the indef block you came from. You've been slapped with two AE enforcement actions since being unblocked, at least that I can see from looking back only a few weeks. I was one of the people who advocated for your unblocking late last year with the belief that every editor who's here to improve the encyclopedia deserves a way forward. I regret speaking out on your behalf, because it's abundantly clear to me now that you consider Wikipedia to be a battleground. Laser brain (talk) 04:03, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

LB: It is true that over the years the press has often described some of the language Wikipedias as battlegrounds (Slate recently reported on English, the Signpost on Azerbaijan), so I do hear what you are saying. I'll think about it.🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 04:49, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

IBAN modified

Hi SashiRolls. The two way IBAN you were under with Tryptofish has been modified. It is now a one-way IBAN where you are now banned from interacting with him subject to the terms of WP:IBAN. I've logged this at the AE log [16]. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:55, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I'll add that to the story. Also, enormous thanks to User:Levivich for taking the time to dig up all the evidence in article space, which was no small investment in time. The story will also contain details about talk space. I do not anticipate contributing to the project further as a result of the continuing dishonesty. 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 07:18, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

TonyBallioni, it would have been decent to ask SashiRolls for a statement before closing that. Due to the block SashiRolls was unable to respond, which isn't the right way to handle things. Trypt's behavior at the ANI thread and reopening of the closed thread to keep going after Sashi were not ideal and showed me that the 2 way ban was necessary. Mr Ernie (talk) 07:49, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

SashiRolls I want to offer strong support for taking this to ArbCom. The lower courts are clearly incapacitated, given their lack of response to evidence provided by (you and) Levivich. The apparent favoritism is not what one expects to see after issuing threats like this, but perhaps there is a chilling effect? (I also wonder whether lower courts are more prone to the "good ole boy" effect, where years and years of prolific activity at Admin noticeboards make certain editors so familiar it becomes impossible to find fault.) I believe ArbCom can rise above all of this to some degree. Hounding is not something that should be rewarded or ignored. I hope you will consider filing again now that you've no options elsewhere. petrarchan47คุก 18:49, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

WMF Office Action brouhaha at BN

re your proposed block against myself, which I embrace. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 08:43, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

permalink to context.

Snoog lodges a complaint about neutral POV editing

You are edit-warring on an article covered by discretionary sanctions. You should self-revert immediately. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:41, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

No. You are being disruptive, again. Quit harassing me. 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 16:43, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Criticism of Wikipedia

Why are you adding dates to the section headings when it's quite obvious that such dates are irrelevant? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:13, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Seriously need a proper reply soon please. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:30, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

I've also asked at Talk:Criticism of Wikipedia#Dates in section titles. I do not understand these edits. – bradv🍁 17:32, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for observing the entry was busy for editing (CF. Template:Busy). You are welcome to revert now that the data analysis has been done, and a stable version with the completed dates is available. Noting the date ranges for the criticism in each section does not seem to me irrelevant, in fact it seems helpful. However, if everyone is against it feel free to revert the work now that it can be linked to. Best, 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 17:59, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

July 2019

Your recent editing history at Criticism of Wikipedia shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Bbb23 (talk) 17:40, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Noticeboard discussion

There's a discussion about you on the Administrators' noticeboard.[17] Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:39, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes I received an umpteenth notification. As I said before, please stop harassing me.🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 10:20, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

This is not harassment, it is a required notification. ~Awilley (talk) 13:25, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

I have been pinged by Snoog at the Village Pump, the Help Desk, AN, twice on my talk page in the last few days. Their continual references to me as "feverish", "troublesome", time-wasting, etc. on talk pages over the years are standard smear for you I suppose, AWilley? Do you really think I don't know this is a required notification? 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 14:08, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

You can make it so that you don't see the pings. It is in the notifications section of your preferences. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:14, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Self-Templarization

I am aware that DS exist on English Wikipedia, specifically as regards BLP, American politics, and genetically modified organisms. I am also aware that DS does not mean devoir surveillé as it does in French. This is not a test. 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 15:25, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Violation of 3RR at Jill Stein

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

You should self-revert immediately. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:00, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

"Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert." You have done no work here: you have made no propositions for correcting the errors on the page, and have reverted my various improvements 3 times. As it stands, the article now at least contains a source for the claims you wish to make, which it did not for the past two weeks due to your sloppy revert on July 23rd. Your insistence on the charged, clickbait term "legal defense" when the article talks about "compliance" with a Senate inquiry is just one example among many.🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 12:22, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:59, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Interesting Situation.

I hope my comments aren't coming off as aimed at you, they are not. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 19:44, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Response to questions asked about Haiti

Unless I'm misreading something, your recent comments in this thread look like pretty clear cut cases of casting WP:ASPERSIONS on other editors. If you're going to accuse other editors of misbehaving (whether by implication or explicitly) then you should ping them and you should be ready to provide substantive evidence to back up your claims. If you don't have evidence, then you should stop saying it.

I really don't want to spend time at WP:ANI, but this seems very over the line to me, and I will ask for input there if this continues. Nblund ^talk 16:43, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Could you indicate what you think is an aspersion? I'm providing the references you yourself requested to the debates over the Clinton Foundation / Haiti 3 years ago ("Did I miss some evidence somewhere?") I don't know. Did you read the discussion about the Clinton Foundation role in Haiti that Helen & TFD are talking about? I provided links to the page Clinton Foundation, Haiti-United States relations, Caracol, Nord-Est, & Association of Industries of Haiti in the diff you cite and mentioned nobody other than Helen (not a wikipedian) SavvyJack and TFD, all of whom I do believe agree that there was a problem... I said nothing negative about anyone. I answered your question, and did not bring up this line of inquiry. Why are you threatening me, Nblund? 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c}

This statement: Now some people edit over 15 hour stretches, day after day, sometimes taking 2 or 3 hours of breaks in the day, sometimes not, for months on end. I often think it "must be nice" not to have to do a day job, but I've also understood that it may also be tough not having a day job to do and feeling obliged to edit Wikipedia instead., along with the statement I linked to, both look to be implying that editors are being paid to insert biased edits on to Wikipedia. I don't really see any other way to plausibly read them. I don't see anything in those links that supports the claims of paid editing. If you have it, you should present it. If you don't, you should drop it. Nblund ^talk 17:44, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

it may also be tough not having a day job implies being unemployed, not being paid to edit. Again, I encourage you to get back to work on your dissertation, since that is what will qualify you to continue along your chosen path. Fighting wiki-battles will not.🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 17:53, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

I asked for evidence of paid editing, and you said that your response was addressing that request - so then what were you implying if you weren't talking about accusing someone of paid editing? If you're not trying to imply that Snoogans is a paid editor, then perhaps you should clarify that on BLPN as well. I'm sure I'm not the only one reading things that way. Nblund ^talk 18:01, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Whether Snoog is a paid editor or not is not a question that can be addressed given the rules protecting anonymous actors on English Wikipedia. The raw facts about the 15-hour days (e.g. 7-8 Aug, 6-7 Aug) are there for anybody who wants to look at them. This could be for many reasons... they could be retired, unemployed, an ABD student not writing their dissertation, independently wealthy, on disability leave, with a job not requiring diligence, etc...) Speculating as to why they edit 40+ hours per week is beyond what we're allowed to do (especially if one suggests "paid editing" as you have above). 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 18:20, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, I really don't buy that. I think you understand the issue, and I am asking you, for the sake of my dissertation, to spare me to trouble of going to ANI over complaints you have no ability to prove and that do nothing to improve article content or the editing environment. If you're sincerely confused, feel free to ping me. Unwatching. Nblund ^talk

The "15 hours" is obviously a reference to myself, as can be seen in this off-wiki discussion that Sashi was part of[18]. For what its worth, if you google "snoox", "snoog" and "snooganssnoogans", you'll find dozens of references over multiple years where SashiRolls is complaining about me on forums for disgruntled Wikipedia editors, with all kinds of vague rambling allusions to me being a paid editor. This includes discussions where Sashi and others are trying to work out my real life identity (which I don't want to link to publicly, so as to not encourage others to try to doxx me). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:05, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

I don't care what your real life identity is, Snoog. I care that you misrepresent sources. 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 18:20, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Block

I'm blocking you for another week due to an accumulation of uncollaborative behavior. This includes the edit warring reported here, more SnooX [19] despite being repeatedly warned and sanctioned over that, vague threats about being written up (off-wiki?), and harassment in the form of continued jabs at Snoogans. The next block will be longer. ~Awilley (talk) 18:31, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Hullo, willey. I take it you did not find my preparing the evidence as Lev suggested we do collaborative? I take it you did not find my so-fix-it attitude towards another of Snoog's biased contribution to be collaborative either? Odd, since it was pointed out publicly how bad the edit was. I take it this is what you want to prevent... that an ArbCom case be filed against Snoog?

Observing the number of hours someone edits is against the rules? Referring to people by their pseudonyms too? And concerning googling "snoox" I think you'll find that it doesn't lead anyone to me talking about en.wp ... (just another Pinocchio for your collection, eh?)

Not to worry, you'll teach Snoog right from wrong, won't you Mr. Willey? That's all that's needed... a clever fellow like you to patiently explain to them what they're doing wrong? It makes for good theatre, while everybody's looking, that's for sure, Mr. Willey.

I am not jabbing at Snoog. I quietly prepared evidence for an ArbCom case against them, as suggested in the thread at BLP/N. I responded to the questions as to why people were concerned about the Clinton Foundation page, without saying anything mean about anybody. I responded to Snoog when he accused me above of things I've never done. (As you know I have repeatedly asked you to sanction them for claiming I've asked anyone to doxx them. I certainly never have. That is a lie. But, you seem to be happy with letting it go... over & over. By the way, I have asked Snoog to stop commenting here, but they don't listen, do they? ^^

So you've moved cross-country, huh? like your new place, your new job? 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 23:04, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Awilley, unfortunately at this point your seemingly complete cluelessness administrating this topic area needs to be called out. Suggesting one editor take a week off but blocking another? What are you doing? This is administrative harassment and I would like to ask you to leave Sashi alone. Mr Ernie (talk) 23:56, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

I take administrative action when it becomes apparent that talk alone isn't enough to get someone to abandon a bad behavior. ~Awilley (talk) 00:31, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Lol if you say so. That was funny. Mr Ernie (talk) 00:37, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

May I please have a diff showing SashiRolls asking Snooganssnoogans to stop posting to his talk page followed by a diff or diffs of Snooganssnoogans doing it again? (As usual, certain things such as ANI notices are required to be posted to a user's talk page and do not count). I will also be checking to see if SashiRolls stopped posting to Snooganssnoogans talk page when the request was made. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:52, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

You could just ask me Guy, you're on my talkpage. I think it was back on February 21, though perhaps it wasn't as crystal clear as I have learned to make it since. Since then I've posted to their page once concerning a copyvio, which I ended up bringing to AN/I (so, notification) and which turned into vaudeville with all sorts of people adding illustrations... then once the 29 July after they'd edited my TP a couple times a few days earlier. The diffs in that edit are in the ArbCom case which I guess I'll have to help file if that is the only thing that will stop the bad behavior. 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 01:25, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Keeping to my standard practice of not passing judgement on who is wrong and who is right before I see the evidence, the evidence above is insufficient to show that Snooganssnoogans posted on your talk talk page after being asked not to. Not saying it did or did not happen, just that you haven't posted diffs showing it. If you file a case at arbcom, be aware that arbcom requires evidence in the form of diffs that show the behavior that you claim happened. For example, at User:SashiRolls/alt-litterbox#Case prep you make a claim of edit warring with one diff. You need a diff showing each revert and a diff showing that the user has been warned. Also, that page keeps talking about things like "the source says" and "the source does not talk about". That isn't going to cut the mustard at arbcom. You need something like "user A claimed(diff) that source B(cite) says (exact quote from user A), but the source says (exact quote from source). When this was pointed out to him (diff) he responded with X(diff)." Every claim in an arbcom case needs a link to a source or a diff that shows that the claim is accurate.

I would also caution you against the snarky comments you made above. If you continue that sort of behavior you may end up with a lengthy block and no talk page access. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:18, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your input Guy. Talk to you in a week. (i.e. not before, please have the kindness to refrain from commenting here for the next week. Is that clear enough?) 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 02:24, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Guy Macon, to be fair to Sashi he once caught a lengthy block for pointing out fishy behavior by a former admin socking to circumvent an editing restriction, which is something editors like Snoog still like to use against him (see that recent ANEW post where that was described a bit more obtusely). Nothing surprises me anymore. Mr Ernie (talk) 02:26, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

While the AE filer was a sock, the diffs did point to problematic behavior. There were various other instances of warnings, reports and blocks for similar behavior (accusing other editors and Wikipedia when failing to reach consensus, hounding some editors, fomenting conspiracy theories). This was even ongoing during a related unblock discussion (although various editors expressed compassion and hope there as the indefinite block had been standing a while, resulting in editing privileges being restored). —PaleoNeonate – 14:33, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Note that as always with this krew, not a single diff of me doing anything wrong is provided, just vague references to me doing something vaguely wrong while pointing out a massive astroturfing operation corresponding very closely to DNC/intelligence objectives... being led by Cirt under cover of a new account (since the last had had similar problems). Not one single diff. ^^ 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 15:25, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Anybody wanting to revert some vandalism, might want to have a look here. The IP first vandalized the Clinton Foundation entry (on my watchlist) and was immediately reverted. However nobody bothered to look at their contribs. Fixed here. NB: if this vandalism was related to my block, I would ask that people don't do that, but instead write articles for mainstream publications. @Awilley:, this would have been removed already earlier, but you blocked me for preparing evidence for an ArbCom case against (among others) SS and yourself. So I'll let you know about that vandalism so you can fix it yourself. 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 11:19, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Response to block

Before this block expires, I would like to make a few things clear. This block was made by an involved administrator who I had asked to steer clear of me, but who is constantly being badgered by two people to block me (Snoogans & Kolya Butternut, both of whom have been involved in drama not involving me in the last week ([20]) ([21])). I intend to quietly correct the blpvio introduced in the former diff (Kathy Shelton's issue was with HRC not Bill) and do absolutely nothing about the latter wall of text, as it does not concern me.

In the interest of not escalating matters, Awilley, I have not sought to have this block overturned, nor have I sought to have you desysopped. Just above, I highlighted the repeated aspersions which your friend continues to repeat against me since September 2018 (that I have sought to have them doxxed) and which I made you aware of at that time. Their repetition of this false claim immediately preceding your block is one of the primary sources of bad blood between us (you have not encouraged them to desist from casting aspersions); the other is the misrepresentations I was quietly documenting when you blocked me (and which I suspect was a large part of the reason you blocked me, to chill the ArbCom case people were suggesting compiling diffs for at BLP/N).

In your block, Awilley, you said "the next block will be longer". There are two problems with this statement: first, it assumes there will be a next block... which is an entirely negative (and threatening) way of envisioning the future. Second it assumes that you will be doing the blocking despite your involvement, which given the comments from MrErnie & Dodger67 concerning this block, strikes me as tone-deaf.

Could you indicate on your own TP, Awilley, whether you agree to steer clear of me going forward, or if you rather intend to continue for your primary contributions to en.wp to be policing a careful reader and productive contributor? I see that people are complaining (here, on your talk page, and at BLP/N) about the uneven "justice" you've been meting out of late. I hope you will listen to these legitimate concerns.

(NB: your 238 edits to mainspace in the last 3.5 years are roughly equivalent to the number I've made in the last 90 days despite your blocking me twice and chilling my enthusiasm for participating.)

Finally, wrt the content issue that you said you blocked me for (correcting misleading prose on Jill Stein's BLP) I think you should note that your friend has not reverted my correction of their prose. Knowing them pretty well, this is likely a sign that they understand the current text is more accurate than what they had written. The path of least drama is letting it go, Awilley, as you seem to have trouble seeing the matter clearly. I hope you'll take this constructive criticism with humility and will not lash out at me further. For my part I will avoid using the word you've forbidden me to use (no, it's nothing as dramatic as the language used in a recent request for re-adminship, but is just a playful portmanteau), and I will be especially attentive should further traps be hastily set to make it look like I've violated any rules while correcting misrepresentations, such as the blpvio linked to above. (If anyone is watching this and wishes to correct the blpvio mentioned above so I don't even have to bother -- as was done with the vandalism I reported earlier this week -- they should feel free to go ahead and do so.)

The following people should understand that I would prefer that they steer clear of my TP except for required notifications until further notice:  Snooganssnoogans, Kolya Butternut, MrX, Awilley, & Guy Macon. Thank you.   will extend you the same courtesy unless I am being discussed on yours (with notification or without -- as was the case on Awilley's TP recently). 🌿   SashiRolls ^{t ·   c} 15:50, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Short response: Re "the next block will be longer": Until you begin to treat your colleagues here on Wikipedia like...well...colleagues, you will likely be subjected to a series of blocks escalating in length, whether those blocks are imposed by myself or another admin. Re "administrative harassment" first see WP:HA#NOT, second, I'm fairly confident that my early intervention at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive252#SashiRolls saved SashiRolls from a stiffer sanction, probably a topic ban. I prefer to see users abandon poor behaviors and continue constructive editing than just see them get banned at AE, and that has been the primary motivation for my "involvement" here. ~Awilley (talk) 22:41, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

May the volcano grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change (people posting to my talk page when I ask them not to), the courage to change the things I can (my approach to the ambient toxicity), and the wisdom to know the difference. So, colleague, do you really intend to do something about poor behaviour or am I being unwise to point at the elephant in AP2? You may respond to this question here, if you wish. 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 23:19, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Whether or not I sanction Snoogans will depend mostly on Snoogans. I read/skimmed through the report in your sandbox last week, and if you are truly interested in my advice, I don't think an Arbcom case request would be a very good use of anybody's time, and from what I saw I'd give it maybe a 50% chance of even being accepted. I think the most valuable thing you could do in terms of your Wikipedia career would be for you to focus less on others and more on improving the way you interact with others. And watch out for TLDR walls of text...something we're all guilty of from time to time :-) ~Awilley (talk) 03:17, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Alohapedia

Add reference for Andrews' definition of aloha:  Done (It felt good to be thanked within half an hour of being back, thanks! I passed that thanks along to someone else, too... ^_^)

References

Further to-dos:

• Perhaps add illm to Vincent Duclert at fr.wp, mentioned in recent edit-war.  Done Also clean up punctuation errors and grammatical infelicities and check on refs that have been deleted at YVM.

• Add Postol's paper to the RS/N "general" survey of reliability of Bellingcat started the very same day Bellingcat released an article called "Tulsi Gabbard’s Reports on Chemical Attacks in Syria – A Self-Contradictory Error Filled Mess". Why wouldn't Mr. Higgins have linked to this paper published on 6 June 2019 at accuracy.org? That's an absolutely remarkable omission given the subject...  Done
• deal with unpleasant preparation for an ArbCom case (grrrrr, if only it weren't necessary...)

Re

[22] - Well, I believe that "Holocaust in Poland" was also a huge and meaningless waste of time. I think the person who started this case (Icewhiz) did a big disservice to the project, whatever the outcome. He had to either be able to go along with other contributors or edit something else. Same applies to other contributors and to the AP subject area. My very best wishes (talk) 22:01, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Your edit summary made me laugh. (same things apply to EE as to AP.) Indeed, it does appear there is a lot of off-wiki coordination going on in AP these days. New gamergate-savvy users magically pop up to thwart efforts to achieve NPOV. That said, I agree the name-calling from both sides in that VM v. IW case was way over-the-top and I would assume that both sides will be sanctioned as a result.

It's not clear why you are responding here rather than where the question was asked. Any further discussion should take place where the question was asked and not here. I hope that this is clear. 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 22:34, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

I have no idea what Gamergate is and what off wiki coordination you are taking about. Your question had nothing to do with BLP. So I responded here. My very best wishes (talk) 01:24, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

ANI notice (Bulldog Antz incident)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Nblund ^talk 21:21, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you!

Thanks for supporting my recent albeit unsuccessful RfA. Your support was much appreciated. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:26, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

No problem at all; thanks again for your careful reading of the situation last Halloween @Hawkeye7:! Had I known you were coming with tea, I would have cleaned up and cooked up a carrot cake or at least some banana bread! ^^ I enjoyed your op-ed this month. I've thought about this problem of conflicts between the no-borders mentality and applicable local laws when watching Canadians edit fr.wp on French election weekends (a time when overt politicking is forbidden in France). Even thornier is the question of the categorization of BLPs by religion or ethnicity, which has always been illegal here (art. 226-19)—even before the GDPR (article 9). 🌿 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 07:30, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Sciences Po

Hello, Apologies if this isn't something you are interested in discussing, but I believe you recently deleted some text from the article Sciences Po that I may have found two references for. Regarding the phrase "This process has been accused of being superficial and being in fact a "lotto for poor people": I found these two articles http://www.laicite-republique.org/sciences-po-une-diversite-trop-homogene-liberation-fr-23-jan-17.html http://www.laicite-republique.org/descoings-et-sa-loterie-des.html I am aware that these sources are unlikely to be deemed appropriate by many/most. I also don't think I feel comfortable of capable of re-adding a similar phrase in order to preserve what may be useful information, but viewing them seems to make the deletion remove reference to statements similar to those that the sentence you removed discussed. Let me know what you think about this if you'd like. (Flagrant hysterical curious (talk) 21:39, 16 September 2019 (UTC))

Aha. So that article dated 15 January 2009 was, in fact, fr:Jean-Paul Brighelli's blog: §... I thought it might have been him. (I had a chance to chat with him on neoprofs.org a few years after that, before he started getting repeatedly banned from the forum. Curious fellow...) ^^ 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 21:53, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

That's actually quite helpful, @Flagrant hysterical curious:I hadn't made the connection between Causeur & Marianne 2. Regarding the opinion, it would need to be attributed to Brighelli, and probably doesn't belong in the lede, IMO. I don't think he still makes the mainstream mass (le 20h) as he did back in La Fabrique du crétin day.🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 22:21, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

re:statistics question

I have yet to look at the racism article, but in Poland, like in much or Europe, we don't focus on race (more of an American thing) but ethnicity. And so the article you may be looking for that is linked from Poland (and should be from racism if it isn't) is likely Ethnic minorities in Poland? (Please WP:ECHO me if you reply here, TIA). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:09, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

@Piotrus: I think I may have successfully pinged you from Racism in Poland, but if not, thanks for the suggestion. 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 23:07, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

@Piotrus: Hi again. Thanks for pitching in over there (and for your work on a lot of entries I've read recently). Here, I think the title of the page causes more problems than it resolves. I also read your link to pl.wp through gtranslate. Your paragraph on the Ukranian minority is good. What is described relates to xenophobia / ethnic tensions. But where do you draw the line between (in)visible minorities and race? Concerning the story of Gdansk, I read a bit more about it and got the impression that this might have been more a question of securing access to the sea (trade) with accompanying rampant (ethnic) warcrimes. I remember reading a Trustee writing about the furor over calling Gdansk Gdansk... though I later lost his book. :( Racism in India redirects to Ethnic Relations in India. I wonder how that happened. ^^ 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 08:42, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

I assume by the book by a Trustee that mentions the Gdanzig vote you mean Common Knowledge?: An Ethnography of Wikipedia (incidentally, the author is a Pole...). As for the line, it's is as usual a murky grey zone, but AFAIK and what also our article on racism says, racism is not limited to racial discrimination but also to discrimination of ethnicity of the same race. Note that ethnic discrimination redirects to Discrimination#Race_or_ethnicity. So I think that Poles discriminating Ukrainians, or Germans discriminating Poles, fit safely within the concept of racism. It's not just about skin color. Through I wonder how far we can take this. For example, ethnic Polish szlachta nobility had a myth that they descend from Sarmatians and therefore are ethnically different from ethnic Polish peasants who descent from locals conquered by the Sarmatians. So here is a case of possible racism by people of the same ethnicity over others of the same ethnicity, based on fake belief that they are not of the same ethnicity... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:41, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

@Piotrus: yep, that's the book. 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 08:36, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

These "racism in" articles are an interesting phenomenon across the Wikipedias:

Name	other language wp
Ethnic relations in India	Hindi, Chinese
Ethnic violence in Afghanistan	Portuguese
Racism and discrimination in Ukraine	Russian
Xenophobia and racism in the Middle East	Arabic
Racism in Asia	Tamil, Arabic, Malayalam
Racism in Finland	Finnish
Racism in France	France
Racism in Israel	Arabic, Hebrew, Russian, Thai, Vietnamese
Racism in Poland	Estonian
Racism in Russia	Russian, Ukranian, Tamil
Racism in Rwanda (Redirects to Racism in Africa)	(fr:Ethnisme au Rwanda)
Racism in Saudi Arabia	Arabic
Racism in Sweden	Arabic, Swedish
Racism in Turkey	Arabic, German, Greek, Farsi, Turkish, Zaza
Racism in the United Kingdom
Racism in the United States	Afrikaans, Arabic, German, French, Spanish, Farsi, Italian, Chinese, Portuguese, Russian, Japanese, Indonesia

Not sure what to make of all that, but it is sure that the Polish page looks nothing like the Ukrainian page. 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 08:33, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

A very acute observation; standardization is needed in many topics (see for example something similar I posted a while ago here). I'd suggest starting a WP:RM on the pages that don't fit the "Racism in Foo" style, with the argument that things should be standardized to the common term and those other terms are attempts to downplay the topic by using a more obscure, less clear term. Feel free to ping me from a ny RM on this and I'll cast my vote. Another related topic is the standardization of "Collaboration in Foo" article names, something else you potentially may find of interest. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:18, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Edward Snowden

How is that Joe Rogan bit relevant at all? The content is also not supported in the cited secondary source. If you think it should still be included in some way, could you please start a discussion on the talk page per BRD so we can discuss it? – Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 16:29, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

I've got another bold edit to make. The BRD essay encourages people to see just how obstructionist the page guardians are against the addition of content they don't like by proposing different edits. ^^ 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 16:33, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

You apparently have some WP:AGF issues. – Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 17:00, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

No, just am aware you could have added refs easily yourself, rather than reverting.🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 17:02, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

AE

There is a request involving you at WP:AE. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:26, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Indefinite block

You have been indefinitely blocked for linking externally to the deleted SWAPP attack page. I'm not sure what you were thinking, but it was the wrong call. El_C 19:56, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

strategic wikisuit against public participation. Yes, I know that page. Nobody outed, just "inconvenient" facts for the mandarins who control en.wp. I am glad to have honourably done my duty to attempt to help en.wp from the inside. You are welcome for the 10,000 contributions. I wish en.wp luck dealing with its corruption problem. 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 20:02, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

The page was deleted as an attack page, so you should have known it crossed a line to restore it via an external link. El_C 20:05, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

I have revoked your talk page access. To still file an unblock appeal, please see UTRS. El_C 21:13, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

There appears to be significant challenges at DRV to the status of the page in question as an attack page — please also see my note there. In light of that and taking into account that you were upset yesterday, I am going to restore your talk page access so that you can launch a proper unblock appeal. But I'm doing so with expressed expectation that you do better and that you refrain from further innuendo. Thanks and good luck. El_C 17:15, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

If the page is restored to my user space, I will delete it myself. The deletion was out of process, so it should be restored so I can delete it. There need be no MfD. Had someone asked me or had I been notified someone wanted it deleted I would have done so as I have a copy of the relevant diffs on my own webhost. What needs to be removed from the record is the false claim that it was an attack page. It is and was a compilation of evidence.

I have lost a great deal of sleep over this and do not wish to make anyone else as tired as I am. This is pretty clearly the lowest drama solution. 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 23:04, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Ah, I am tired, I can only blank it, not delete it... I suppose that is why it will have to go through MfD in order to be deleted with a legitimate reason, like "as requested by the author". BTW, you said that I should have asked for undeletion if I wanted the inappropriate labels removed from the page history, but as you know I could not do that without violating the 2-way interaction ban you set as punishment for the 2 of us involved (I don't remember you ever mentioning any of the facts in that page during the AE case, but... maybe we should talk about that at a later time at Block Review (wherever that is)). Or you could just unblock me, send the page to MfD, and I'll confirm that I am fine with the page being deleted... and everyone can get some sleep... 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 23:14, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

SashiRolls, sorry to hear that this has adversely affected your sleep. At any case, indeed, if it involves Tryptofish, that is a problem in itself. Note that Tryptofish has since successfully appealed my original 2-way interaction ban, to a one-way ban only. Anyway, the deletion/undeletion status of the page is something for the DRV to decide. I am unblocking you so you can participate in that process and will also reopen the AE request, as well. But please, SashiRolls, you don't have to be nice, but please try to be more collegial and less personal with your overall interactions. It clearly would be in everyone's best interests. El_C 23:48, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

WP:AWARD

	Guardian of the Flame
	The stalwart flame flickers. Pudeo (talk) 21:11, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

"I went down, down, down

And the flames went higher."

(thanks!) 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 04:43, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Page blanking

My talk-page was blanked by an administrator earlier and replaced with an unsigned message suggesting they had overridden a clear 4:2 consensus against taking the action they proposed at AE. Their message leads me to believe that were I to appeal their action, it would be considered disruption and so I would be indefinitely blocked. When asked for evidence in the case page and on their TP, this admin has repeatedly said they don't need to provide any. When asked to repost the sanction here without deleting others' comments, they ignored the request ("my way or the highway" adminning style). This should be pretty clear-cut at Arbcom, but I predict it won't be. Are dysruption and corruption two sides of the same coin? Personally, I'm not very invested in the topic area, that does not mean I should be summarily topic-banned from it without any evidence of "wrong-doing". 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 22:50, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Since you haven't linked the AE(?) thread, I cannot review and comment. I'll just note that the same admin has blocked, IMHO unfairy, another user in a case I reviewed here. However, in either case there is very little one can do, even if one thinks that admin abuse has occurred. It is extremely difficult to defend yourself unless you are an admin of have admin friends, since admins are generally not willing to make enemies by challenging another admins action. The best recourse is trying to become an admin yourself, then you become immune, since admins cannot be blocked/etc. unless they commit much graver sins (or are extremely unlucky and people think they did so, not much difference...). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:39, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

National Independence Day. Armistice Day. Veterans Day. To quote Gil Scott-Heron, "Peace go with you, brother." Yes, my trial was showing at AE for a couple weeks. Seraphimblad, who just closed it, left a link in his unsigned comment linked above. 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 02:01, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Us mere mortals are normally required to cite diffs when making comments about editor behavior, or else we'd be casting aspersions. Admins are free to disregard that it seems. When sanctions are "discretionary," there are wide bounds as to what is acceptable, and editor history is taken into account. Since you have a history as a "troublemaker," especially regarding that Cirt / Sagecandor affair, which is somehow still being cited against you (in the AE thread Kingo cited 3 previous AE's, all filed by Cirtcandor). For those unaware, Sashi detected issues with editor Sagecandor, who happened to be a disgraced former admin socking to evade a topic ban. Reading those former cases filed by Cirtcandor is very enlightening, given what we all know now. Amazing that someone has harbored a grudge against you for so long now. Mr Ernie (talk) 09:33, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Us mere mortals are normally required to cite diffs when making comments about editor behavior, or else we'd be casting aspersions. Admins are free to disregard that it seems. I'm noticing this too. It seems overnight they have thrown away all pretense of fairness. I am currently the victim of aspersions cast by a tenured admin who ignores my requests to stop and to provide even a scrap of evidence proving the allegations. In general, when asked to weigh in or to help, admins simply do not show up if it means going against a fellow admin. It is becoming laughable at this point. And all we can do, is point and laugh. petrarchan47คุก 04:30, 17 November 2019 (UTC) pinging Mr Ernie since I quoted you. petrarchan47คุก 04:31, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Evidence?

In response to the above... if anyone had had any evidence of any wrongdoing in the topic area they would have presumably posted it in one of the two AE cases. They didn't despite repeated requests from several members in good standing to do so.

I was topic banned without evidence, apparently on the basis of a previously imposed 2-way IBAN I did not violate:

This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means.

What is says at the log:

Both SashiRolls and -------- are subject to an indefinite IBAN. El_C 01:58, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

I did not interact with ---------- except in the context of the page noticeboard where I was accused of interacting with them (i.e. WP:AE). No ABAN was ever logged. The idea of combining an ABAN with an IBAN has been categorically rejected in at least two cases (counting my own). Nobody could provide a single diff of disruption in the topic area I was banned from in the last three months, so none was provided. I am willing to be proven wrong. Please add below any evidence of disruption in the topic area I was banned from in the 3 months preceding that topic ban below.

I will add that I don't care that much about the topic area, it is the lack of transparency and the bearing false witness that I object to. 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 20:41, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, are you claiming you were never informed of the ABAN, or are you claiming that it's not valid because it wasn't logged? --Laser brain (talk) 02:01, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Read what is in turquoise above. I was officially told that the sanction imposed was logged and followed the logged sanction strictly. A sanction, to be valid, must be logged (one cannot and should not be put in a position of having to appeal invisible sanctions). Note that no ABAN or TBAN appears in the log in May 2019. Likewise in the case itself. 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 02:25, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Twice. The initial IBAN didn't mention an ABAN in the closing statement or in the log, and when it was appealed and replaced with a one-way IBAN, the ABAN again wasn't mentioned in the closing statement or the log, or even on the user talk page notice. That's two closing statements and two log entries from two different admin not mentioning an ABAN (plus the second talk page notice). If it were me, I would have understood that I was under a one-way IBAN and that's it–no ABAN. – Levivich 03:29, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

SashiRolls was informed of the ABAN on his Talk page. I don't think he disputes that or is claiming that he didn't understand the sanction. I think he's claiming that it's not valid because it wasn't logged properly. But, I didn't really get a straight answer to my question. --Laser brain (talk) 03:33, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

You got a straight answer. Here is a partial analogy to help you understand: you get pulled over for bicycling while green and the officer gives you "friendly advice" not to be seen riding in the neighborhood again (perhaps to avoid becoming victim of road rage) but gives you a citation/ticket which only prohibits you from ringing your bicycle bell at a particular 18-wheeler.🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 11:14, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes I understand what you're saying. However, I don't think you understand what I'm getting at. I'm interested in ensuring you were treated both fairly and properly in this case. If I'm to seek a removal of your topic ban on the grounds that the sanction you violated was unlogged, I'd have to head off questions about whether you're feigning ignorance of the sanction or just saying it was unfair/improper. The latter is believable, while the former is just insulting people's intelligence. A more apt analogy would be that you got pulled over and cited for disobeying a traffic law you knew about, and you're now down at the courthouse arguing that the law was improperly passed and therefore you don't have to follow it. --Laser brain (talk) 12:13, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

You, Mr. Andy, have commented about every single case I've been targeted in at AE (yes, I can diff that, it wasn't necessarily in the case at the time...). Now I'm not sure, Lb, why you keep following me around, but I would bet good money it is related to whatever led you to create the wholly inapt analogy above. "Laws" are always written down and have been voted upon. I violated no written "law". Fun, how involved you're getting... I saw you even brought me on the campaign trail with you for ArbCom. What was up with that, anyway? (I found it pretty lacking in class to make comments knowing that I could not respond without violating some "law" or other that had recently been imposed due to a misapplication of the rulez...🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 18:51, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

I was actually interested in going back to AE and having your topic ban removed because I don't believe you were treated fairly. It's normal for admins who are familiar with the history of disruption in different topic areas to respond when those topics come up at AE or other places. But, I'll end my involvement here. --Laser brain (talk) 19:50, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

OK. (I seem to recall you calling twice for me to be indeffed in the last few months, so, I'll take that with a pinch from the auld salt-pillar, if you don't mind...) 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 19:54, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Evidence Space :

diff #1

diff #2

diff #3

A survey to improve the community consultation outreach process

Hello!

The Wikimedia Foundation is seeking to improve the community consultation outreach process for Foundation policies, and we are interested in why you didn't participate in a recent consultation that followed a community discussion you’ve been part of.

Please fill out this short survey to help us improve our community consultation process for the future. It should only take about three minutes.

The privacy policy for this survey is here. This survey is a one-off request from us related to this unique topic.

Thank you for your participation, Kbrown (WMF) 10:45, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

 Done, Kbrown (WMF). 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 20:48, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

thIS.mobcAR-RAdar

just!aNYBody

Links to full text on digital libraries

I understand you're interested in the matter of links to the full texts to improve verifiability. Google Books is huge and we seem to have some 250k articles linking a GB ID + page number, but there's also Hathi Trust, and even more numerous are the citations of academic papers which mention a DOI. In this field, there are thousands of academic repositories but one of the biggest is CiteSeerX, which we link from thousands of articles. The matter is discussed at Wikipedia_talk:Copyrights#CiteSeerX_copyrights_and_linking. Nemo 22:13, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Nemo, this will take me a while to read through, but I've gotten started. ^^ 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 23:27, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Tulsi Gabbard

Why are you writing in your edit summary 'undue weight' when your edit is not a question of weight but introducing a tendentious, and wrong word, 'teenager'. You obviously want the reader to infer that this is an unformed intellect, one that can't be judged an adult , but the dates in the article cited don't support that really do they? Or am I misreading the article cited. She doesn't seem , in 2002, to be removing herself from her fathers campaign objectives in 2002? When she was not a teenager. Why introduce tendentious misleading text.The Bone Dorchester (talk) 20:33, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

The article says the bill passed that the organization lobbied for when she was 17. It says that she mentioned her experience with the organization's lobbying effort later in 2002 when she was running for public office for the first time at 21. It does not say she continuously worked for the organization between those two times. I used the term "teenager" because you objected to me citing what was in the article ("When she was seventeen"). 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 08:40, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

I have started a sockpuppet investigation here. 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 09:42, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I see that. Keep white washing the tyrants Sashi, thats your role isn't it. I'll keep sniping back whenever I can. With RS. The Bone Dorchester (talk) 22:57, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

For info, I worked with an Alawite Armenian guy, who was furious with al-Jazeera for pushing war in Syria back in 2012. It gave me a little perspective on the complexity of the situation. Cheers, Dan, if I haven't been blocked, and even if you are (as I suppose you might be), I'm fairly sure we'll meet again. ^^ 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 23:08, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Pushing conspiracy theories is a 'perspective'. Of a kind. Troll, really. 78.144.85.37 (talk) 23:15, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Ah, how memory plays tricks after 7 years. He was actually an Armenian Christian, not Alawite, come to think of it. DYK a lot of the Manchester Wikipedians, Dan? 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 23:42, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Memory going the way of the intellect. DYK a lot of conspiracy theorists? The Bone Dorchester (talk) 23:47, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

OK. That's about enough splenetic propaganda for today Bulldog Antz. Quit harassing the worker-ants.🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 23:52, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

For giving voice

	The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar
	Thank you for your diligent updates on protest movements around the world - work that is cited, translated, and read far beyond our digital borders. – SJ + 22:07, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, SJ. diligenter is a motivating verb in French! ^^ Hope you are well! (I see that some schools have started opening back up in Haïti this week.) 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 10:52, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

@Boud: thanks for all of your good work in this area. You deserve this much more than I do. Maybe SJ will check out your work and add one. ^^ 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 23:51, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. :). Boud (talk) 10:13, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

I have created a topic at Talk:Daphne_Caruana_Galizia#reversions

Hi

i noticed your reversion and other edits, and made a comment about my edits and an explanation so that we can establish some sort of agreement and consensus on how to proceed; having been reverted because "the copyedit inverted cause and effect", is indeed a serious accusation to me.

Why? Because I am a member of GOCE and have copy-edited for many years, and so I will try and explain why I made the edits.

You may, of course, still disagree, but without consensus we are lost :) Chaosdruid (talk) 18:30, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

I have responded: you changed after X to after which X which inverts cause and effect. No big deal, I've reverted back. 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 20:24, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Highly uncontroversial RM needs closure

Talk:2018–19_Iraqi_protests#Requested_move_28_November_2019 has full consensus, is past its 7-day deadline, and I don't see how it could be controversial. Nevertheless, I'm WP:WIKILAWYERING rather than ignoring the rules, since as I on my own constitute a 50% !voting bloc, I could be biased. See Wikipedia:Requested_moves/Closing_instructions if you wish to help. :) Boud (talk) 20:12, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

It's done; I went ahead and moved it and slashed out the 2019 part (reduplicated in the main article). I'll add a note to the talk page about that big deletion. 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 23:18, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

It’s that time of year!

Christmas tree worm, (Spirobranchus gigantic) Atsme Talk 📧 16:56, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
	Time To Spread A Little Happy Holiday Cheer!!
	I decorated a special kind of Christmas tree in the spirit of the season. What's especially nice about this digitized version: *it doesn't need water *won't catch fire *and batteries aren't required.
	Have a very Merry Christmas – Happy Hanukkah‼️ and a prosperous New Year!! 🍸🎁 🎉

Happy Holidays

Thank you for continuing to make Wikipedia the greatest project in the world. I hope you have an excellent holiday season. Lightburst (talk) 21:41, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Lightburst, May your 2020 be filled with rich visions! :)

Media Coverage

There is a 1RR in effect on the page. Editors physically cannot perform multiple edit reverts. Per the talk page at the time, there is no established consensus and issues have not been addressed. You should revert your edits. The style changes can remain, but the controversial issues should remain until an agreement is made.--WillC 21:39, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

If you make three edits in succession with no intervening edits, that counts as one revert, for info. 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 21:46, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

I've always counted one single edit as in the 1RR. Any other removal being more. With the contentious topic, I'd rather not give editors an excuse to try to bring me before administrative boards. That is why I came to your talk page first, in order to allow the current discussions on the talk page and the RS noticeboard to continue to play out. The information being removed has an established consensus per WP:EDITCONSENSUS as of right now. I'm just asking nicely and respectfully to allow the process to play out and let the chips fall where they may.--WillC 21:58, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:39, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Funny, Snoog, I'd just been thinking about lifting my "long-standing" request that you not post to my talk-page. Speaking of the WaPo & bias, the WaPo made you look really bad on the CounterPunch page. You dutifully copied the most damaging text about Counterpunch that you could into Wikipedia, back on 26 Dec 2017, which I found by searching for "stoking discontent". You added it, as often, the day after it was published. Bad luck. It turns out you read your WaPo source wrong (which your WaPo source actually facilitated by not being precise in its claims). As it turns out Alice Donovan didn't write about any of the things you said she did at CounterPunch. You "edited" the article as recently as last month, one wonders why you never went back to fix your disinformation. Do you have anything to say about falsely suggesting that Counterpunch was "stoking discontent" regarding Hilary Clinton by publishing one (1) article during the election by someone the FBI apparently alleges was a Russian agent that had nothing to do with Clinton, the election, Wikileaks or Assange? For info: I had no idea whatsoever who was behind this edit until using WikiBlame... 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 21:29, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Wow, the follow-up on that story is something else. ^^ Ghosts in the Propaganda Machine 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 22:34, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Actually, I see you first added it on Christmas Day, 2017, the same day Jeffrey St. Clair's article appeared. (sigh: how do you get your selected sources so quickly and your unselected ones so slowly? On the 26th (see diff above) it appears you were already warring the EiC's article out of the entry.) Incidentally, if I start talking about you on my TP after you open a section, you are of course welcome to respond. 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 23:54, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

January 2020

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Media coverage of Bernie Sanders. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. This is synthesis. I'm pretty sure I have discussed such edits with you before. In case don't understand why this is synthesis, I have expounded on it on the article talk page. - MrX 🖋 17:59, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

The owner-operator of the media source needs to be identified. I first did so as a "water is wet" claim. You didn't like that, so I added a source that makes clear why it is important that we identify the media actor involved.🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 18:02, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I know what you did. You can't do that. - MrX 🖋 18:11, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:SashiRolls reported by User:MrX (Result: ). Thank you. - MrX 🖋 19:29, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that I pleaded guilty to removing the word "slightly" which I had originally added at 02:26 and then removed at 02:29. I should not have reacted so quickly when WMSR butted in at 02:32, but should have double-checked the TP to see whether that was a 1RR trap or not. Well done! Also, thanks WMSR for letting me know. Good to see O3000 [23] and GMG [24] simultaneously getting involved! Oh look, Snoog's there too for a "gotcha" moment... 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 20:27, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

January 2020

Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on Talk:Media coverage of Bernie Sanders. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Your comments to Snooganssnoogans were inappropriate and uncalled for. Don't cast aspersions on other editors, or speculate about their employment status or personal lives. WMSR (talk) 14:51, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's really casting aspersion to ask what qualifications he has to say authors and publishers and paid editors working for publishers write "absurd content". In fact, some would rightly argue that calling respected authors' work "absurd" is a personal attack and a BLP violation. I notice you did not correct Snoog's long pattern of personal attacks on the page. 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 17:03, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

It absolutely is. This is a collaborative project. Snoogans criticized your edits, not you as a person. That's the difference between valid criticism and PAs. You crossed that line. --WMSR (talk) 20:18, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Nonsense. Stay off my talk page. 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 20:21, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Fair enough

I would like to pray that Your Most Gracious Excellency Lieutenant-General Too-Humble-to-keep-Barn-Stars-or-Userboxes-on-User-Page Highness Esquire receives my most esteemed gratitude for your recent edit. Boud (talk) 01:05, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Now if the IP had added some emoji, that I could have understood. You remind me that I need to "been" a lot of this page, but I'm way too superstitious for that. I see you're still hard at work, Boud! 🌶 SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 03:27, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

AN/I

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. --WMSR (talk) 04:30, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

3 questions

Are you aware of the discussion on Snoogans talk page? Do you understand what the problem is that is laid out in the last set of diffs? If yes, what do you plan to do about it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Awilley (talk • contribs) 15:58, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Three (3) people collaborated on the above post. ^^ -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 19:23, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Ha. Yeah all because someone, who shall remain nameless, forgot to sign their post. I hope you do not mind. PackMecEng (talk) 19:26, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

I do not mind, though I am tempted to remove the signature so they can remain nameless. :) -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 20:54, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

I saw that he was complaining about 24h BRD on a page that does not have 24h BRD among the DS. Insofar as the BRD page had a sub-section "when to use...", which talks about pages that are at an impasse, this is not relevant insofar as he and MrX had blanked half the page. If a 24h BRD notice is added to the page I will respect it of course. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 16:42, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

I do assume you will do due diligence regarding the two clear examples of misrepresentation I posted to your page, Awilley. If you want more, let me know. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 20:54, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

OK, I can see the answer to the 1st question. I would appreciate direct answers to questions 2&3. ~Awilley (talk) 21:16, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry you did not understand my answer to your 3 questions. I'll try to write it again so you do. The problem with Snoog's posting is that they are pretending the 24h BRD page is posted to the page when it is not. 1RR is (and I have scrupulously respected that except when being tag-harassed by Snoog, WSMR, and MrX when I was very sleepy). I was warned for removing the inaccurate word "slightly" I had myself added because of MrX's complaint without notification, and because O3000 made it impossible for me to revert my mistake, exactly 9 minutes (540 seconds) after MrX's filing. This was O3000's first ever contribution to the entry. What a coincidence! Oh look, another! Obvious is obvious. (120 second interval) As for what I will do, read my statement again. Put 24h BRD on the page, and I will, of course, respect it. Now, can I count on you looking into the misrepresentations I noted on your TP? -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 21:26, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

WP:BRD and WP:STATUSQUO are things you should be respecting anyway when there are extended content disputes. Snoogans has made a commitment that includes following BRD regardless of whether there's a formal sanction or not. And as far as I can tell they've been following that. Now it looks like you are taking advantage, and I want you to make a similar commitment. You can do it on your own, or I can do it for you with a formal sanction. ~Awilley (talk) 22:42, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Sounds like a threat. Have you looked into those clear examples of misrepresentation on your TP? (Of course not.) I'll let you know before I edit mainspace again. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 22:46, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

I've attempted to slog through that thread twice now today. I'll try again before I respond there or close it. ~Awilley (talk) 22:51, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

You should put the 24h BRD on the page for everybody or for nobody. You should also block Snoogans for lifetime achievement as the person who has made the most personal attacks ("batshit insane", "incoherent rambling", "poor writing", "brazen", "unhinged", "godawful", etc., etc.) for the four recent policy violations you have been made aware of, and for their repeated violations of WP:STATUSQUO on Media coverage of Bernie Sanders. "If you see a good-faith edit which you feel does not improve the article, make a good-faith effort to reword instead of reverting it. " (just one example, there are many many more) "If there is a dispute, editors should work towards consensus. Instead of engaging in an edit war, which is harmful, propose your reverted change on the article's talk page or pursue other dispute resolution alternatives." A perfect example of his violation of this is this revert introducing an error (Patterson talks about both primaries, not one) followed by his vitriolic post here after 4 days of not participating on the TP and no constructive comment on the problem of the lead not containing the page title. That post violates the WP:FOC policy as it makes no comments whatsoever on content. They should also have been blocked for their policy violation on 31 December 2019, but you chose to look the other way, encouraging them thereby in their harassment. (the page that they link to did not mention them as a matter of fact, and did not make the claim they sought to pretend it did.)

So let me know if you decide to add 24h BRD to the page (or not, I'll see it), and let me know when you do your duty to enforce policy (or not, I'll probably see it).-- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 23:38, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

31 minutes after this post, 24h BRD was added to the page for everyone for the first time since I've contributed to it. (maybe I have a TPS? ^^) So all that remains on the table for you, Awilley, is whether you intend to enforce the anti-harrassment policy or not. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 00:16, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Railroading at WP:AE#SashiRolls

 You are invited to join the discussion at WP:AE#SashiRolls. - MrX 🖋 14:26, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

• Per the result of this discussion, you are indefinitely topic banned from the subject of post-1932 American Politics. This sanction has been logged at DSLOG2020. Best, ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 06:11, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Sorry to see you joining in with the "I didn't hear that" crowd. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 06:41, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

• Swarm, interesting to see discussion among the uninvolved admins avoiding all of the points Sashi raised, and to also see how several had already made up their mind before Sashi had a chance to respond. Nobody made any attempt to look into the tag-teaming. Mr Ernie (talk) 08:56, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

In fairness, they probably don't need to look into it: they know how it works already and want to keep it working that way. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 09:50, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

It's a truism that Wikipedia is the way it is because that's how the community wants it to be. FWIW Sashi I've been a much happier editor since I've stopped trying to edit AP2 articles (and pretty much all other DS areas). Turns out it's quite relaxing to edit articles where other editors aren't actively trying to stop you. Levivich 18:43, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm glad you have found things more relaxing outside of these areas. Looking in at the intense wiki-lawyering here, I'm a bit surprised to hear you you say that. :) -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 15:28, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Suuuuuper relaxing. No conflicts whatsoever ;-) Hey, and I'm only 25k of text away from getting my parawikilegal certificate! Levivich 16:38, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Best regards

Swarm I took the time this morning to look through the AE archives from November 2017 to February 2020 (archives 220-260). I am the one and only person to have ever had a judgment rendered against them which ends with a personalized best regards,. During that time, Swarm, you've closed at least 2 other cases, but you didn't include such a personalized message. I wonder if this unusual personalization is related to the criticism leveled at you for your misbehaviour at BN? I notice that you used an even shorter version (best,) to notify me of these heavy and unwarranted sanctions here on my TP above. Is this new personalization something we should expect more of at AE? -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 07:23, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

May I suggest that you let this perceived slight go? This is not a good place to quarrel or pick fights, which seems to be something that you resort to when things don't go your way. We are supposed to be here to build the best online encyclopedia, in collaboration and in the spirit of camaraderie. There are so many wonderful and diverse areas of Wikipedia that could benefit from your contributions. Wouldn't you be happier doing that instead? - MrX 🖋 13:35, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

May I ask you to respect my twice repeated request (23rd May 2019, 17 August 2019) that you stay off my talk page, MrX? Your habitual prosecution of those who don't agree with your POV and the success of these prosecutions (like the success of Cirt's prosecutions as Sagecandor with your help) is more of a structural dysfunction (feature) than a bug (accident). Had neither side (or both) been sanctioned I would have let it go, however, now that the structural bias of your kangaroo court has been laid so blatantly bare, it does seem a shame to let it slide... -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 18:33, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Let me get this straight...you posted an 3RR report on MrX and he was warned...then he posts one on you that gets you topic banned, and prior to this you twice asked him to stay off your page and now he's here again taunting you?--MONGO (talk) 21:40, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

No comment on Swarm's wording of the close, but you need to go to arbcomm. MrX think he WP:OWNS wikipedia and his friends at AE just reinforce this. Beyond absurd that he think he can just come to your talk page when you repeatedly told him not to. His mere posting on your talk page (not to mention his condescending tone) is a blatant violation of WP:HARASS. It is obvious that he dose not believe the rules apply to him and has been enabled by bad administrators. You have been treated very unfairly and I will support any effort to overturn your ban.--Rusf10 (talk) 21:26, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

• It's just how I sign sometimes.[25][26][27] It's just meant to be polite. I never even thought about it consciously. It's certainly not a personalized sarcastic pot shot if that's what you're thinking. If anything, it should convey that my involvement is nothing personal and that there's no ill feelings in my action, as was the case here. I don't recall any past interactions with you. Did I really post that comment on your talk page? Because that sentence isn't even grammatically valid. My bad. Anyway, I do see the context, I called for a re-RfA for an admin who resigned in support of the WMF during WP:FRAM, and you said I deserved to be blocked for it, and I said that if anyone whosoever thought your request had merit then they should indeed block me without hesitation. Like I said, I don't even remember that exchange. A lot of heated exchanges were had during Framgate. It appears though that in encouraging anyone who agreed with you to block me, I was challenging the legitimacy of your assertion that I deserved to be blocked for stating my opinion in good faith for the record without violating any policies or guidelines. Reading that discussion, I genuinely can't even discern why you even would have called for my block, because I obviously didn't take any of my comments too far and become uncivil or issue personal attacks. Even now, when tempers have cooled, and I can acknowledge that I did definitely cross the line in many instances during Framgate, I don't really see what was wrong with those particular comments at BN, so I reject the notion that my comments constituted "misbehavior". The accusation was silly then and is silly now. It wasn't even significant enough for me to remember. However, if you really think that this is some malicious revenge plot, and that the consensus I officiated did not exist, you have the full right of appeal. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 07:49, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

The consensus view of your action at BN was summarized here.-- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 09:15, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

MLauba was heavily WP:INVOLVED, and was an opponent of myself and an an ally of the user I was criticizing. Even if you agree that she was right, you can't possibly claim that her words represent a consensus. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 00:54, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

• Swarm, did you look into the tag teaming accusations at the AE? What did you think about it? Mr Ernie (talk) 21:39, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

From what I see there is no real evidence to support accusations of "tag teaming", meaning coordinated malicious meatpuppetry meant to fabricate a consensus or otherwise game the system. Users routinely associating with each other, agreeing with each other, or frequently crossing paths is not in itself indicative of bad faith attempts to violate policy. However, let's set that aside for a second: even if the allegations were true, they would have no bearing on the result of the AE report. Tag-teamers or not, the opinions of already-involved users' calling for sanctions carries relatively little weight in a community forum. I assessed the evidence, the community statements, and the consensus of uninvolved administrators. The "tag-teaming" allegations are a red herring at best, a personal attack and aspersion at worst. They do not actually mitigate the underlying complaint, even if you lend credence to them. And as a defensive tactic, it worked, several users focused their comments on their concern over those allegations. However, this comprised little meaningful defense from the actual allegations at hand. The evidence was strong and straightforward, and there was a unanimous consensus from nine uninvolved administrators supporting the topic ban. You have to have a serious defense to overcome that, and instead the defense focused on blaming the other party. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 01:14, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

T.S. Eliot

Clevinger was guilty, of course, or he would not have been accused, and since the only way to prove it was to find him guilty, it was their patriotic duty to do so.

-Darouet (talk) 19:06, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

I appreciate you stopping by; I never cease to be impressed with your patients! -- EtherisedPatient ^{🌿 · 🍥} 15:33, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

February 2020

Hello SashiRolls,

As you know, you are subject to a topic ban from post 1932 American politics, broadly construed. The topic ban applies to any edit anywhere on Wikipedia, with the only exception being appealing your topic ban. You edited User:James J. Lambden/sandbox 15 times, and that page clearly involves contemporary American politics. Accordingly, I have blocked you for two weeks. Once your block expires, please be scrupulous in avoiding American politics on Wikipedia, at least until you successfully appeal your topic ban and it is lifted. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:51, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

@Cullen328: I don't see this as a good block. It is very possible that sashirolls was going to use the information on that page to appeal his topic ban. Rusf10 (talk) 04:08, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

That motivation also clearly, brightly, violates their topic ban. This is a good block.--Jorm (talk) 04:16, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Rusf10, please correct me if I am wrong because I do not have a lot of experience in administrative enforcement regarding American politics, but weren't you formally warned about battleground behavior in the AP topic area? And aren't you the editor who recently revived the moribund page in question that categorizes various editors as "pro-Trump" and "anti-Trump"? Consider yourself warned that your edits to that page were in contravention of your earlier warning. Please do not test the limits. As to the substance of your remark, SashiRolls could have easily made a declaration of such an intent, but didn't. Such a declaration could have been evaluated on its merits, but this editor didn't ask for guidance and instead forged ahead with 15 edits in violation of their topic ban. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:40, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

@Cullen328: Did I disrespect you? Because you went into attack mode with your response. Please do not threaten me. My edits to the page in question are completely legit and nothing more than a documentation of AE results for others to review. Rusf10 (talk) 04:50, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Yeah seems a little sketchy to be honest. PackMecEng (talk) 04:53, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Rusf10, no, you did not disrespect me and no, I do not think that I went into "attack mode". Are you prone to assume the worst? I hope not. I stated what I believed to be facts and invited you to refute my assertions, telling you that I am far from the most experienced administrator in these matters. You have not yet done so. I am only a single administrator trying to communicate my judgment to you about your actions and comments. I could possibly be wrong and if other administrators tell me that I am, I will certainly pay very close attention to them, or to any editor who makes cogent observations about my behavior. Until then, I will reinforce my warning, and I will ask you a direct question: Do you think that any page anywhere on Wikipedia ought to categorize various editors as "pro-Trump" or "anti-Trump"? I don't support that kind of pigeonholing which I see as devoid of nuance. Do you? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:28, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

I think everyone is just confused why you are bringing up an unrelated warning from over a year and a half ago and threatening people for no apparent reason. I would suggest the rest of your question would be better suited for the MFD on the article. PackMecEng (talk) 05:33, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

PackMecEng, I do not accept your characterization that the earlier warning was "unrelated" and instead I believe that it was "on point". I do not care whether it was 15 months ago or 150 months ago. A valid warning is a legitimate warning. I am not threatening anyone with anything new. The editors that I have warned are well aware of the behavioral standards and the consequences for defying them. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:36, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Cullen328, I'm sorry to butt in here and I appreciate your willingness to engage in dialogue with multiple editors about this block. I'd ask you to reconsider your view that the table categorizes editors as pro- or anti-Trump. The column heading is "Case evidence". There is only one pro-/anti-Trump column, as opposed to having a separate column for the filer and subject. The table doesn't specify whether the pro-/anti-Trump label applies to the filer, the subject, or the admin. I believe it applies to none of the above–it applies to the evidence, that is, the diffs at issue. If you look at the first row on the table, it's tagged "pro-Trump", and that AE filing involved edits to Donald Trump that are clearly "pro-Trump", such as [28] and [29], and it also involved comments on the Trump article talk page wherein the subject accused other editors of being "obviously anti-Trump", as well as edit warring Breitbart into the Donald Trump article. The dispute in that AE was about edits that were pro-Trump. The second row on the table is "anti-Trump", and one of the subjects of that AE is the filer of the first AE. That AE involved diffs of anti-Trump edits to the Donald Trump article (saying in wikivoice that Trump is a "right-wing populist") such as [30] and [31]. It seems to me fair to characterize the edits in evidence in the first AE as "pro-Trump" and the edits in evidence in the second AE as "anti-Trump", and they both involved edits to the Donald Trump article. I don't see this as characterizing any editors as pro- or anti-Trump, just the edits. Also, note that in the first AE, the result was a TBAN; in the second, no action. Correlation is not causation, but this table definitely appears, or alleges, to document a correlation. I haven't checked the whole table yet to see how far the correlation runs, but I plan to, and to be honest I was kind of looking forward to having some help in that endeavor. :-) Levivich 05:45, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Levivich, your response is artful but unpersuasive in my mind. When I look at that table or chart, I see specific editors characterized as "pro-Trump" or "anti-Trump". If that was not the intent, then whoever designed the table has to answer for that. But since you have engaged with me in an intelligent way, let me ask you a frank question: Do you think that it is permissible for an editor under an AP topic ban to be editing that specific page 15 times without stating that their edits were part of a planned appeal? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:03, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Cullen328, true I can't speak for the intent of the table designer. I can see BANEX suggests being clear in your edit summary and it would have been better if Sashi used an edit summary that said, "I am updating this table to use it in a forthcoming appeal". However, failing to use an edit summary is usually not a blockable offense, and I think two things are worthy of consideration. First, Sashi has been up front about their intent to appeal, and their intent to present evidence that they have been treated differently at AE than other editors in similar circumstances. For example, see above on this page, where Sashi writes, I took the time this morning to look through the AE archives from November 2017 to February 2020 .... It's often been observed that Sashi has a unique writing style and one must speak Sashese to truly understand Sashi, but above where they write Had neither side (or both) been sanctioned I would have let it go, however, now that the structural bias of your kangaroo court has been laid so blatantly bare, it does seem a shame to let it slide..., that means they are going to appeal based on structural bias. (Nb: "Kangaroo court" is uncollegial and Sashi would do well to avoid that kind of language if for no other reason than that it makes it easier for me to defend you ffs help me out here.) Also, Sashi has a litterbox that they use to prepare postings at AE. You can see in the history the drafts of their recent AE postings, and of them working on the page after the sanction was applied, and editing the page concurrently with editing the table. So the first thing is, even if they're not announcing it in an edit summary, they're clearly working on an appeal and not hiding that fact in any way. The second thing is, this isn't disruptive. I mean, yeah, they're TBANed from AP2, but it's not like they're editing an article, or a talk page, or participating in an AFD, or a VPP thread or ANI or a policy page ... it's updating a userpage in an inactive user's userspace. It hardly gets any more "abandoned corner of Wikipedia" than that. That is the least-disruptive place for Sashi to violate their TBAN. I don't see a block as really preventing any disruption to anyone–certainly not to readers, and not to other editors (except those who choose to watchlist this userpage in an inactive user's userspace). At the most, if Sashi shouldn't be editing that page, I'd suggest simply telling them not to edit that page. If they don't listen, a partial block from the page. It would be different if they were editing a mainspace article after the TBAN. But fundamentally, yes, I think Sashi should be allowed to gather evidence of bias at AE in preparation for an appeal. Levivich 06:30, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

I've known about this page more or less since it was created. It's never occurred to me that anyone would see it as anything but a page used by editors of one political blent to try to find evidence that editors with a different political view (mainly anti-Trump) were biased. Or that it wasn't all about American politics. To me this was an obvious violation of his topic ban. He must have known that. Doug Weller talk 07:20, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

It's not a violation if WP:BANEX applies, e.g., an evidence page for an appeal. Levivich 07:42, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Lol. That's absolutely nuts, Cullen. The tag-teaming of MrX & Cirt (qua Sagecandor) at AE is indeed part of the general problem of admin toleration of and participation in obvious tag-teaming and bullying (sometimes, as in the case of Cirt, while socking and violating a TBan). I was under the impression that I was not to speak about post-1932 American politics due to my having made life difficult for the anti-encyclopedists at Media coverage of Bernie Sanders. Not that I was not allowed to prepare my defense. en.wp is thoroughly corrupt.

Also, I do tend to agree that characterizing me or my edits as "pro-Trump" in Dec. 2016 is about as devoid of any possible truth as can be imagined. It would have been better to use the terms HOUSE POV and ANTI-HOUSE POV. None of this is related to American politics, as such, but to who the HOUSE TEAM decide to kick off the island / out of "utopia", usually, as here, with the flimsiest imaginable excuses. So, removing the label "anti-Trump" from my name and noting that very successful prosecutor and former admin Sagecandor was a sockpuppet violating a TBan is grounds for a block? Give me a break. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 09:51, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

There's really no point appealing. Cullen328 seems to have made his mind up that this block was necessary to prevent, well I'm not exactly sure what it prevents, but nonetheless, to enforce a sanction. It is interesting to note that a certain user followed Sashi to that sandbox and nominated it for deletion - behavior that earned another user a sanction a few weeks ago. I don't expect Wikipedia to be fair, but it is very demoralizing when such completely different standards are used. Mr Ernie (talk) 11:05, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes, the only point in appealing a wrong-headed sanction is to show what the bullying reveals, not to hope for real remediation. So, what can I understand here... a page on AE wiki-jurdisprudence is apparently not about wily prosecutors or sage judges or even us oft-sanctioned ne'er-do-wells? If I follow you, good Cullen, it's about more than that... wiki-politics, is it? The servers aren't that far from Langley & Dulles, it's true. I suppose wikipolitics, insooth and verily, could be AmPol (2). I hadn't thought of it that way. I thought we were "making an encyclopedia," but I guess it's all about the bacon. Should I have known? -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 13:52, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Vacation

I am on vacation. If you want to reach me you can send me email. I thank everyone who has sent me crumpled messages by carrier pigeon while the TransSiberian Express was getting hot. I will try to respond to everyone.

Best, -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 23:46, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

|in lieu of a statement

[...]

[...] l'univers me déborde

Car j'ai négligé de m'assurer contre les accidents de chemins de fer

[...]

[...] à K——— nous avons croisé un long convoi de soldats fous

J'ai vu dans les lazarets les plaies béantes les blessures qui saignaient à pleines orgues

Et les membres amputés dansaient autour ou s'envolaient dans l'air rauque

L'incendie était sur toutes les faces dans tous les cœurs

Des doigts idiots tambourinaient sur toutes les vitres

Et sous la pression de la peur les regards crevaient comme des abcès

Dans toutes les gares on brûlait tous les wagons

Et j'ai vu

J'ai vu des trains de soixante locomotives qui s'enfuyaient à toute vapeur pourchassés par les horizons en rut et

des bandes de corbeaux qui s'envolaient désespérément après

Disparaître

Dans la direction de Port Arthur

---

Blaise Cendrars, "La Prose du transsibérien et de la petite Jehanne de France" (dédiée aux musiciens (académie de Versailles)

¹ Based on train bridges and history, Cendrars is less likely to be referring to the penal colony in Tasmania than to the Chinese port.

Grumbling about Cullen328's "preventive" block

(written for the drawer)

I was blocked by Cullen for removing an inappropriate misrepresentation of my politics... in one continuous, uninterrupted series of edits.

Cullen328 himself said: When I look at that table or chart, I see specific editors characterized as "pro-Trump" or "anti-Trump".

In point of fact, however, I was not blocked in 2016 for being "pro-Trump" or "anti-Trump" but for being anti-sockpuppetry, anti-disinformation, & anti-astroturfing.

Likewise, I was not blocked in 2019 for being pro-Gabbard but for being against the addition of disinformation (about multiple subjects across the political spectrum) to en.wp. I was blocked on 10 Aug 2019 because I was preparing evidence that day for an Arbcom case. At least from my point of view (and probably also from the POV of informed onlookers), this is the "disruption" these blocks were meant to prevent.

Parenthetically, Cullen328 spent time after blocking me adding comments to my TP about things that had absolutely nothing to do with me. ← no idea what "warning" is being spoken about here, but it clearly does not concern me from the context.

I could say a lot more, but will wait until I have time to bring the very strong evidence to an appropriate venue where it will be properly ignored. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 13:27, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Arbitration case opened

In 2018, you offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has now accepted that request for arbitration, and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Jytdog. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Jytdog/Evidence. Please add your evidence by March 23, 2020, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Jytdog/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration.

All content, links, and diffs from the original ARC and the latest ARC are being read into the evidence for this case.

The secondary mailing list is in use for this case: arbcom-en-b@wikimedia.org

For the Arbitration Committee, CThomas³ (talk) 17:21, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

A token of appreciation

		The Barnstar of Good Humor
		For your exemplary comment in support of creffett for adminship. Let's be honest, that is an amazing dog. Cheers, Mz7 (talk) 18:45, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Funny moment / 'ere coronation time / feather trim

All hail emperor Cr-effett... -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 00:28, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Edward Colston: June 2020

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Cassianto (Talk) 08:53, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi Cassianto. No, I was involved in checking the references at Edward Colston. I found some unsourced wiki-text and removed it and provided a synonym for "philanthropy", a word which may be overused in the article. You caused me quite a few edit conflicts while I was doing that "encyclopedic" work. Have a good day, Cass. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 09:02, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Sorry about that, but this has been discussed over many days and even appears on a noticeboard, so to do away with it now, before a consensus is reached, would be wrong. Hope you're well. Cassianto^Talk 09:12, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

No problem. Thanks for cutting the redundancy. I think the lead may be better now. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 09:28, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

@Cassianto: As you can see I should not have been polite and corrected the accidental Twinkle reversion with a normal one. This ended up in my being blocked. I guess I wish I were an unblockable like some folks I know (El C for example). ^^ -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 13:45, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Slatersteven (talk) 14:55, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Partial block from Edward Colston

You have been blocked from editing certain areas of the encyclopedia for a period of one week for edit warring. 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 ~~~~}}.

El_C 20:37, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

WP:ADMINACCT, [32] -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 23:51, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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

---

Request reason:

TThis block does not prevent me from doing anything. The page in question has been full protected for a week due to edit-warring today. The block was originally for making a 3rd revert in 24 hours, which corrected the misattribution and misrepresentation of a source. (This is why I reverted DeFacto once in the afternoon. In the morning I'd reverted Cassianto once, accidentally tagging it as vandalism when Twinkle loaded, then used another (normal) revert to apologize for the misclick.) I was blocked 7 hours after my 3rd revert in 24 hours and had said I would not make a 4th revert just before being blocked. This was never a preventive block.

It should be noted that this is the second bad block El C has made of me. Last time, they were good enough to undo it once people started telling them it was a bad block. I suspect it is a matter of "face": in response to criticism, El C says it is "inconsequential" to block someone on trumped up pretexts. I disagree.

It is also worth noting that part of revert #3 was judged sufficiently uncontroversial to be added to the article under full protection and the other part of revert #3 become moot once the sentence misrepresenting the source was removed just prior to the page being full protected (amusingly enough by the person who reverted my revert #3 ).

(This appeal has been edited for clarity since nobody has replied, and since El C is (now) falsely claiming (on his talk page) that I was edit-warring with DeFacto with my single revert (DeFacto reverted me 3 times). I chose the most important element to revert with my single remaining allowed revert after having "wasted" one to be polite to Cassianto.) SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 14:32, 13 June 2020 (UTC); ed. & aug. version: 13:08, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Accept reason:

Block has been lifted. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:54, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

El C has repeatedly said they don't want to lift this block. I'm wondering what to do, since it appears that the admin ranks are closing in to protect the bad block. Since I've done the work to look into this, and since it is pretty disturbing, I'll add it here. From 11:10 on 12 June 2020 to 14:00 on 13 June 2020, the blocking admin did not ever take even so much as a half-hour break, editing every 1-20 minutes during that period. That is a 26 hour and 50 minute shift without a break for sleep or a meal. In my opinion, it is no wonder that they make some mistakes when dealing with what they themselves have called "murky" accusations. Admins who do not work such long shifts should feel free to reverse their unilateral action. Should en.wp really be encouraging people to work 27 hour shifts? This is good neither for the person doing it, nor those whose reputations they sully. (and yes, I know people will use this block against me, just as people have used the block from back when I was prosecuted by socking User:Sagecandor against me).

The other person blocked in this case was a user named DeFacto who has a very long block and SPI record. They apparently were unblocked on a 1RR condition. That limitation has been lifted and it can be argued that they only reverted me 3 times, not 4. When I compiled the diffs I thought they had removed the failed verification tag, but they had just moved the reference.-- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 21:59, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Clear up misunderstanding re Du Bois source

Before you added the link to the Du Bois source, I looked it up at Google Books. The page 445 at Google Books[33] didn't have any Cardozo info, so that's why I deleted the Du Bois source. While editing today I noticed that the link you gave for Du Bois was actually about election, which is what you originally wanted, so I made appropriate changes from nomination to election. Bob K31416 (talk) 13:20, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

You know though, you were right even if it was just a problem of different editions, because (I think) Du Bois is saying that the voting was party internal and was not a general election vote. I'll take a look at your changes, thanks for letting me know. :) -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 13:27, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

@Bob K31416: It looks like you know a lot more about this than I do. I don't know how you managed to read the google books page for the other ref you added. I managed to get an image of the first two lines of page 95 by searching for Cardozo, but oddly couldn't scroll down. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 22:31, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Did you try to scroll down without searching first and just using the page that the link went to? Bob K31416 (talk) 23:32, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Yep. It sounds like we're seeing different pages? I am in Europe. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 00:38, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

On the top line of my page is:

Roster of State Officers.                                                   95

Bob K31416 (talk) 01:49, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

@Bob K31416: Actually, I don't mean we're not seeing the same book, just apparently a different version of the books page. I get this image (only after searching for Cardozo). Otherwise when I scroll down I see a (non-clickable) table of contents that only starts with B Disbursement by warrants 44150 on page 150. It's no biggy. I believe the rest of the page says what you say it does. :) -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 16:03, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

The url in the Cardozo ref link is,

https://books.google.com/books?id=ZbwPAQAAIAAJ&pg=RA4-PA95

I see that the url you get from your internet system is,

https://books.google.fr/books/content?id=ZbwPAQAAIAAJ&pg=RA4-PA95&img=1&pgis=1&dq=Cardozo&sig=ACfU3U089w-bYUdHVH3YRNOKydXyQnPgKQ&edge=0

From what you say, it looks like when you click on the Cardozo ref link you're sent to the beginning of the book or somewhere else instead of p. 95. Here's a url for p. 95 that is longer than the one in the Cardozo ref link that you might try,

https://books.google.com/books?id=ZbwPAQAAIAAJ&pg=RA4-PA95#v=onepage&q&f=false

I noticed that you were directed to the website books.google.fr instead of the website books.google.com, which is in the Cardozo ref link, and this may be the source of the problem. Bob K31416 (talk) 17:25, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

I just tried the url https://books.google.fr/books?id=ZbwPAQAAIAAJ&pg=RA4-PA95 , where I replaced .com with .fr and it worked. So maybe the .fr isn't the problem. Bob K31416 (talk) 18:21, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Site ban proposal: SashiRolls. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:41, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Indefinitely banned 38 - 29 - 2

Based on the discussion here, you are indefinitely banned from English Wikipedia by consensus of the community. This community ban can be appealed by the means described here. In particular, if you wish to appeal to the Arbitration Committee, I or another admin can unblock your account for the narrow purpose of pursuing that appeal. MastCell ^Talk 17:47, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi MastCell. It's an honor to meet you. As you may know, I've stolen shamelessly from you and others for my guide for the wikiplexed and wikiplussed. I noticed that you and I counted the rally from the initial 0-25 block-voting a little differently. You ended up with 18/20-40. I ended up with 24-37 (or 24-12 once the evidentiary phase had started). I know there's a page somewhere about admins and counting.

I apologize to El C for flashing them with the WMF transparency body-scanner when they blocked me and for reporting the results back to their talk page. That this was a critical response to an incident was a poor excuse. (cf. CIRT). I had no intention of this escalating as it did.

I wonder what you think would be best for my appeal. I've looked at the really long form I have to fill out, and one of the first things is to assign a neutral case-name: which do you think is best:

• Free Sushi Rolls!

• Sashi & his critics

• Squashing the sashimikon

Finally in the spirit of that page about counting I mentioned above, is there any reason you didn't mention El C or Tony in your close? Best, -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 12:48, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

@MastCell:, @SashiRolls: The more I look into this, the more it becomes obvious evidence needs to be presented to ArbCom. I thank you for agreeing to unblock me for that purpose. -- -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 16:28, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

@Dennis Brown: Hello Dennis, in recounting the votes at AN, your !vote was the only one that was unclear to me. You did not actually say you supported site-banning me in either of your comments. Could you clarify whether you meant your vote to be a support or neutral? (I assume, given our history, it was a support, but I don't want to misrepresent you.) Thanks for clearing this matter up. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 09:52, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

• My comment was only a comment. I deliberately chose to avoid !voting and simply clarify one point, since it was mildly relevant. My only comment about the present was to say I was not optimistic, which is neither supporting or opposing anything. Since consensus isn't about raw numbers, per se, I'm not sure it would have made a difference had I !voted either way. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:20, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

  I will add, I don't feel that I was obligated to avoid !voting via WP:involved. I just didn't have enough information to offer a fair opinion, based on sufficient and recent observation. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:26, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

• Thanks for your reply Dennis.-- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 13:26, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Well that went badly

My suggestion is that you wait a while (maybe 3 months) and then ask one of those who spoke against the ban for some help in drafting an appeal. I think we don't see eye to eye on a lot, but I don't think we as a community did a very good job of separating content-related and meta issues, and I think the meta issues should have been given much less weight. Just my $0.02. Guy (help!) 08:22, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your message, @JzG:. Yes, from the perspective of me editing en.wp it went very badly. From the perspective of showing the problems with en.wp it went very well. One example: I requested, based on my work schedule, that I be given until the weekend to formulate a response. That was not done, despite 12 of the 14 !votes immediately preceding the close (i.e. after evidence had been presented) being to oppose blocking me. A cynic might say that that trend could not be allowed to continue.

While it may be nitpicking to notice that the number of supports was inflated by around 10% and the number of opposes was underestimated by between 10% and 25% (depending on how you count), it is not nitpicking to notice that the one proposition that had overwhelming support (kick the case to ArbCom and close the RfC/U as flawed) was not even mentioned in the close. Oh well. Also, frankly I find it pretty hard to assess how much we agree and disagree on. I definitely did appreciate your call for de-escalation, though I do suspect you must have been one of those counted as a support.

I will think about what to do. I've taken the liberty of compiling some interesting statistics concerning the number of K contributed to the discussion in order to make ArbCom's task easier if & when I appeal. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 11:29, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

SashiRolls, FWIW, I would not do that. I would start with the original incident, acknowledge fault for "rhetorical exuberance" but point out that most of the subsequent blocks were related to pushing back against the original sanction and not disruption of the content of the project, which is how I read it.

Appeals that focus on what everybody else did wrong, rarely succeed. Those that focus on your own actions, acknowledging fault but discussing how that fault might be shared, that's more likely to work.

Example: Cullen328 is a genuinely delightful man and his block for violation of your topic ban was 100% correct per policy, but there is doubt in my mind as to whether you were properly aware that these edits, which are consecutive edits to a single page over a relatively short time, constitute a violation, or, if they do, whether you should have been given the opportunity to self-revert. Make it about you, not them. You did not handle this correctly, but we did not help you to do so, either.

Members of the admin community, well, we are kind of used to people kvetching. A skin of at least minimal thickness is mandatory. Draw the distinction between your desire for a redress of grievance, which I would say was clumsily executed and resulted in the focus turning on you, and content-based disputes, which IMO are less problematic. You're allowed to petition for redress of grievance and we're supposed to try to help you find a way to do that. But you do need to meet us half way I think.

Also you could do with showing that you understand when to drop the stick. "This may be a problem, I feel that this should be reviewed" is fine; dozens of posts hectoring those who disagree, not so much, right?

You can appeal to ArbCom right now, if you want. I suggest that if you want to appeal - now or later - you draft an appeal and then invite review and comment from some of those who have reservations. To be completely clear here: people have been banned before for less, but in this specific case I think the problem is a shared bad handling of previous issues and a failure to talk people down from the ledge. I know I'm in a minority but I think you actually were hard done by. I also think we should separate content and complaints of Rouge Admin Abuse. At the very least, I think I probably have at least some understanding of how you might be able to appeal successfully, and also what is near certain to fail. Guy (help!) 11:59, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Are there things you could have done better/differently? Sure and you can acknowledge that (and Guy isn't completely wrong here), but as I said in the discussion, they latest diffs presented were all minor and in at least one case completely not actionable. The fact that the alleged victim didn't support a block should have been taken into consideration, but it was not. The fact that MastCell's math was off was something I noticed myself before you mentioned it. He overcounted the support votes and undercounted the oppose votes. Would it have necessarily changed the outcome? No, but I guess he was just trying to make his close look less controversial than it was (and it certainly was). Not only was the counting wrong, he ignored the emerging consensus to go to arbcom and the fact that El C didn't support the block. While we are talking about editing patterns of admins. Something needs to be said about an admin who barely active anymore and then shows up at just the right time to pile on when one of his ideological opponents show up at a noticeboard which is something I already noted here. I would support making it a requirement that admins make a minimum number of constructive edits per year to retain their admin status. The current requirements are far to lenient.--Rusf10 (talk) 21:47, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you both for your input. Thanks also to all the people who showed up to suggest a calmer approach. There was a lot of wisdom in those comments. I've asked the blocking admin some questions in order to see how best to proceed above (in the section immediately preceding this one), but I forgot to ping them. So I'll do that here @MastCell: so that they can provide me guidance on filling out the form for a free ride in the MobCar. It would be nice, indeed, if I could be let out on bail during the preparation.

Point of order: would I still be allowed to bet on the bot-brackets if unblocked or is it ArbCommie-stuff only? -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 13:43, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping; I didn't have this page watchlisted, so I hadn't seen your earlier request. It's pretty simple—if you'd like to appeal to ArbCom, just say so and I'll unblock you so that you can do so. What you say in the appeal, and how you choose to frame it, is of course up to you.

I don't really have much to add about the close. I explicitly decided to avoid addressing specific arguments; there were compelling points on both sides, which the community engaged with. I made an effort to discount obviously frivolous commentary, but there was little of that on either side in my view, so in the end I stuck to assessing consensus. My judgment is far from infallible, which is why there are appeal processes available to you.

As far as betting on bot-brackets, while I can't really see the harm, for clarity the unblock would be specifically to edit ArbCom pages only—otherwise it becomes difficult enforce and people start arguing boundaries etc. If it's important to you, presumably you could ask someone on this talkpage, or via email, to place your bets for you. You are of course also welcome to solicit an unblock under different terms from a different admin; these are just the terms I'd personally be comfortable with. MastCell ^Talk 19:49, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Unblocked for the purpose of appealing ban to ArbCom

Per our previous discussion and your request, I'm unblocking your account for the specific and sole purpose of appealing your community ban to ArbCom. For clarity, you can edit only project-space pages (Wikipedia: and Wikipedia Talk: namespaces) directly related to your ArbCom appeal. You can also continue to edit in your own User: and User Talk: space to prepare drafts, collect diffs, etc., with the understanding that those activities will be focused on your appeal. Please do not edit in other namespaces, including on administrative noticeboards or on other editors' talk pages. To communicate with other editors, you can either ping them in a post here, or email them. (FYI, your most recent ping didn't show up for me, for whatever reason, but I watchlisted this page after your last ping and therefore saw your request above). MastCell ^Talk 18:29, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll be sure to stick to my user space for a good while, as I imagine it will take a while to put all the evidence together. In your previous involvement with sanctions regarding me (in November 2018) you said "I don't see much constructive work.", so I'll be adding a link to some of the quarter megabyte or so of "knowledge equity" I've added to mainspace in that time, so that you have a better picture than you did then. There are quite a lot of entries I've added 1-3K to (always with an RS reference, properly formatted), but the protest entries that were featured on the main page were the primary additions quantitatively. Since then I've focused on smaller additions to a wider swath of entries.

• Yellow vests movement (45K) ... +89.7K ... -41.4K
• 2019–2020 Algerian Protests (36K) ... +48.5K ... -22.9K
• Sudanese revolution (23K) ... +23.5K ... -11.2K
• 2018–2019_Haitian_protests (15K) ... +17.1K ... -7.2K
• Media coverage of Bernie Sanders (8k remains) ... +52.4K ... -42.4K
• Vienne, Isère (3.3K)
• Pierre Vernet (created) (3.3K)
• Gère (created) (1.6K)

Just as a side-note, I don't believe I chose the name for any of those pages, except the two I created. Also, since I don't tend to be prolix, in general when tightening pages, I often delete more than I add.

• netflix
• Paradisus Judaeorum
• etc.

Can I count on you to affirm that I have created some decent content, @MastCell:, since your previous involvement in November 2018? Only one of the above pages caused any significant conflict. Guess which one. ^^ -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 19:19, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

I will likely stay out entirely of whatever process comes next, except to answer questions about my close of the noticeboard discussion. It's meant to be an external review so I don't feel the need to participate beyond that—you can have fresh sets of eyes. More to the point, for me to say anything substantive about the merits of a ban I would need to do my own review of your history and interactions, put my thoughts together, and then defend my conclusions, and I don't really have the interest or wherewithal to do that. (It's been a busy few months in my line of work). I'll explain and defend my close as an assessment of community consensus, but don't have an interest in deeper participation. I'll leave it to you and others to work out the next steps, unless there is something specifically pertaining to me that comes up and that requires my response. MastCell ^Talk 19:56, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

OK. Copy that. The questions I raised about your close are two sections up. Feel free to reply there concerning them. I was coming back to add this BLP (which was quite contentious, and which I edited both before and after being targeted by Cirt in 2016). Didn't mean to be "deceptive", just was thinking about exclusively post-November 2018 stuff, which this entry was not.

• Tulsi Gabbard (4.5K) ... +44.9K ... -72.1K. Other major contributors have similar profiles, as much was split off to her political positions page. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 20:10, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

First draft of overview

@Nosebagbear:, thanks for notifying me of your post here. I agree with your common sense approach (24 hours = 3 beers). The "community" did not. As you may know, I was "community" indef-banned for having discussed this on the admin's talk page in a section they had created specifically named "SashiRolls' partial ban". The admin did reverse the partial block once they got some sleep (and after it was pretty clear I would be "community" banned). He hasn't complained about the ban since.

I'm allowed to be here only because I am actively preparing an ArbCom appeal. I'm afraid it's well over 500 words, so I need to pare it down. Any suggestions you, or any talk-page stalkers, might have would be most welcome.

Meanwhile, I have to prepare evidence about a whole lot of other things that are unrelated because Tony sort of threw a kitchen sink or three at me for daring to speak up in the thread with my name on it. A lot of people have and had been asking me to appeal the earlier sanctions in a place requiring evidence. There's a lot to sift through. Maybe in a few weeks it'll be ready. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 19:26, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

My 2c: it's too long but you said that already. Looking at [34], which is linked in the footnote in CBAN, it gives 4 grounds and I think #1 and maybe #2 applies. (1) some aspect of the community discussion was procedurally unfair might include whether it was open long enough for you to respond as you requested; the trend of votes before either involved party responded; the trend of votes after both involved parties responded; whether votes were still actively being made when it was closed; whether the diffs presented were characterized accurately; whether !votes were weighed equally or not (and do we know); and whether the math in the close is correct. (2) the sanction imposed appears to be significantly excessive or overbroad might include looking specifically at the "new" stuff (the second set of 6 diffs), and what the aggrieved party had to say about it, and what those !voters who discussed it specifically had to say about it, and whether any of that was taken into account by the close (and do we know). HTH, Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 05:28, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi @Levivich:. I completely rewrote it during the workweek off-line. The new version is under 500 words (I think), but I have to finish adding all the links. I based the rewrite on Nosebagbear's comments on MastCell's talk page, so indeed focusing specifically on #1, #2, and #3 in that Shakespeare authorship case. (#3: things changed considerably from the time most !voters !voted) I'll ping you once I've posted it here. Thank you very much for your input, which seems to be along the same lines as what I read on MastCell's talk page. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 05:34, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

To whom it may concern (SashiRolls squashed)

I have filed SashiRolls squashed at ArbCom. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 11:30, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

[smile emoji] petrarchan47คุก 04:10, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Well, I said I would try. I did. I was told to read the rules, which said only procedural appeals were allowed, so I made a procedural appeal. Meanwhile, I've caught a lovely bug. 🐞 I shouldn't have let myself waste my time responding. 2.5 workdays isn't much time.

Everybody knows the facts to the letter, everybody knows how the rhetors wax, everybody smacks out their bit of jabber, everybody knows the house will win, everybody knows that when the lights gets dim, the candle cries and the dancers spin, that's how it goes...everybody knows.

(with apologies all around)

---

SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 20:37, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Always liked that song. O3000 (talk) 20:29, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

There's "cool", there's "cool af", and then there's Leonard Cohen. I always knew Sashi🌿 was in the latter category.

I also have known for quite some time that untouchables exist on WP, and if untouchables exist, the promise of justice is nothing but window dressing. Yet, I was shocked once again to see it displayed in full color, without the slightest bit of shame. Maybe we should jump on the "white men suck" bandwagon and try an all-female ArbCom. Just a thought. petrarchan47คุก 23:40, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

My body appears to have mostly squashed that little 🐞. Only lost one meeting to it. I'm not going to throw any stones at any bandwagons what with all the concerts being canceled this summer. However, I do think this RfC is worthy of attention. I obviously think if someone says IGF that they need time to respond because of their work schedule they should at the very least be given until the end of their next declared day off. And I also believe -2, -9, +47, 0, +9 edits should not be counted against such folks while they are being creatively seasoned in 30+ sauces. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 03:30, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiCat

Today I edited Wikipedia:WikiCat, I think it's much funnier, I hope nobody revert my changes as vandalism. Hope u have a nice day. Thanks! --36.72.214.255 (talk) 07:29, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

I've seen that & chuckled several times. :) -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 11:31, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Notice of noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "SashiRolls_ban_review". Thank you. Darren-M talk 01:12, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for this notification. I very much appreciate all the people who have voiced concerns about how group behavioral problems have been unduly personalized unto my head.

My discretion during the ArbCom case about the admin issue the incident was ostensibly "about" did get some muffled response in one of the Arbs statements. I do wonder if information sent to ArbCom is automatically forwarded to T&S? I assume I'll be notified that the case I filed was closed soon. I assume too that the Signpost will report the final "score" of the 🍣 Squashing SushiRolls 🍣 case I was a party to.

It is unclear whether I am being asked to appeal now or in 6 months. It would probably be better to wait a while and see what RS end up thinking about this. If I need a wixycontin fix, I suppose I can work on other projects (or my own). I see that the early press on this has not been good for the "community", but I would like to assert very clearly that I had no intention of "breaking Wikipedia", nor do I think that I did so. I do not object however to being called Agent S(h)ashi.

May the 🐯🐯🐯 be with you, and, to quote Cirt & El C... good luck!

— Ratatouille ^{🌿 · 🍥} 12:04, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

I do wonder if information sent to ArbCom is automatically forwarded to T&S? You'd have to ask an arb about that, although you may not get an answer. Moneytrees🌴^{Talk🌲Help out at CCI!} 15:47, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, 🌲. I may try that. I just can't help but wonder at the idea that while WMF keyboard-cams exist, it's more "clueful", according to two, maybe three, dozen users, not to use them. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 12:28, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

• The current discussion seems close to 50/50, and my thought is that if it stays that way it will end as no consensus to review the ban discussion. If that's what happens, I really think appealing in six months is the way to go, as you'd get a lot of "I've had enough of this" opposes if you appealed now. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:23, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Boing! Wake me up in 6 months then? Or 5 as the case may be by now... 🐦 🕑 -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 12:28, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

I'll set the alarm :-) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:48, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User:SashiRolls/AC2020: Oppose CBan at AN

User:SashiRolls/AC2020: Oppose CBan at AN, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:SashiRolls/AC2020: Oppose CBan at AN and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:SashiRolls/AC2020: Oppose CBan at AN during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:24, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

WP:UP states the proper procedure for this. Users believed to be in violation of these policies should first be advised on their talk page using //subst:uw-userpage// when immediate action is not otherwise necessary.

Most of these pages have not yet been introduced as evidence in an ArbCom case. Because I had to first appeal a CBan about which there was no consensus that the discussion was decently led, I was unable to bring the cases concerning tag-teaming in AP2 and invisible disruption in GMO. I have not yet been given an opportunity to present this evidence at any board, which presumably means it has not yet been looked at.

Insofar as there is nothing particularly negative about reporting how people voted at the squishy-sushi-fest, there is no particularly pressing reason to eliminate the support vote, oppose vote or overview pages. Similarly, the repeat !voters page is also mentioned in my ArbCom statement and would need to be substituted into the statement before deletion/blanking to avoid changing the case record.

I have stored copies of these files (it took me many days to compile all this evidence after a good bit of time-consuming observation & analysis). I don't think evidence pages which have not yet been seen by ArbCom or at any noticeboard require deleting, but I have no objection as long as they are not labeled "attack pages", and are treated as U1 (user-requested deletions).

I am not requesting U1 deletion for: support / oppose / repeat !voters / overview until a solution has been found to integrate them into the ArbCom case record, but I can't fix that from here in my cell (nor would I really want to poke around changing old cases, BMK, why do you want to chop off the transparent math behind the 38-29-2 tally, for example?).

In any case, I'm glad to see the rules about flash-bans are being made less onerous for the comfort of future high-speed-rail travelers. One day maybe lohipedia will catch on and we won't need to take the wikiwiki shuttle anywhere^TM.

-- redacted ^{🌿 · 🍥} 20:24, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

"Wikipedia:5D" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Wikipedia:5D. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 July 25#Wikipedia:5D until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. ^{the ultraUsurper} 03:37, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

You wrote: I'm struggling to understand what this has to with it's target. If it does have something to do with it, please correct me.

WP:5D is related to its target because it refers to the five disclaimers (content, legal, medical, risk, survey), just as WP:5P is related to its target because it refers to the five pillars (of !Islam). -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 03:49, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

The fish factor (for lack of a better header)

Palais idéal du facteur Cheval, Q3361199

le Facteur Cheval (fr).

Fish industry in France

@Andrew Davidson and JzG:, here's a one-ref stub for you:

France has the third-largest European fishing industry behind Spain and the United Kingdom. In March 2016, INSEE reported that 79% of French fishing is done in the North Atlantic, 18% in the Indian Ocean or off the West African coast, and 3% is done in the Mediterranean. 16,000 sailors were employed in the industry in 2016; in 2019 there were 15,000 working in the most dangerous industry, of whom 1,000 are injured every year. In the last 30 years the size of the fishing fleet has been cut in half.

The total yield of the aquaculture industry in France was roughly the same as in the United Kingdom, and mostly consists of oysters and mussels. In 2016, the fish farming industry represented a bit more than a quarter of the aquaculture market by weight.

France is a net importer of fish and seafood, with one third of these imports (worth €1.4 billion in 2018), being salmon and shrimp.

See also

• English Channel scallop fishing dispute (2012)
• 1993 Cherbourg incident

References

There's a couple more for you. Though I am somewhat interested in the state of fish on Wikipedia, I'm sure there are others who know more than I do. Just thought I'd help you get the ball rolling on yet another underrepresented French topic. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 19:23, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Leïla Martial

.

Naïssam Jalal

.

Victoires du Jazz

last updated in 2014. I suggest removing the weird sentence about "the Grammys" at the end of the lead.

The Months of African Cinema Contest Continues in November!

Greetings,

Thank you very much for participating in the Months of African Cinema global contest/edit-a-thon, and thank you for your contributions so far.

It is already the middle of the contest and a lot have been achieved already! We have been able to get over 1,500 articles created in over fifteen (15) languages! This would not have been possible without your support and we want to thank you. If you have not yet listed your name as a participant in the contest page please do so.

Please make sure to list the articles you have created or improved in the article achievements' section of the contest page, so that they can be easily tracked. To be able to claim prizes, please also ensure to list your articles on the users by articles page. We would be awarding prizes to different categories of winners:

• Overall winner
  • 1st - $500
  • 2nd - $200
  • 3rd - $100
• Diversity winner - $100
• Gender-gap filler - $100
• Language Winners - up to $100*

We are very excited about what has been achieved so far, but your contributions are still needed to further exceed all expectations! Let’s create more articles before the end of this contest, which is this November!!!

Thank you once again for being part of this global event! --Jamie Tubers (talk) 10:30, 06 November 2020 (UTC)

You can opt-out of this annual reminder from The Afrocine Project by removing your username from this list

Talk page access

Hi SashiRolls, I've restored talk page access in case you wanted to respond to questions or concerns at your AN ban appeal. If you leave comments here, they can be copied over to AN for you. — Wug·a·po·des​ 04:33, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi Wugapodes. Thank you for restoring TP access per my request yesterday at OTRS (original OTRS request: c0f76bb4ac2db6c3468fcb8405a2f13f)

Some of the projects I am currently interested in, for information:

1. learning more about the citation templates, in an effort to be able to help make them more easily translatable between projects (cf. my user page at Wikidata). I am quite interested in the Wiki Function project...
2. jazz: I've noticed a fair number of things that can be improved on pages related to jazz, some of which are mentioned above on my talk page.
3. US Senate confirmation hearings: A (disambiguation?) page on this 1787-present history topic should probably be created in Wikipedia's 3rd decade of existence. (I will only be able to work on the pre-1932 elements of this page, but a disambiguation page can already be created with exclusively pre-1932 elements)

I have attempted to offer en.wp a gift for its 3rd decade: an offer to continue to provide volunteer labor, letting bygones be bygones. It appears that a number of people active in the recent US politics area still wish to exclude me, despite the fact that I am not asking to participate in that area.

I am well into my third decade of teaching now, having taught at all levels from primary school to Masters level and continuing education. I have worked in difficult situations (particularly in middle schools (e.g. religious minority schools at particularly difficult times, a reform school)) and in much easier ones (university, professional training, work with recent immigrants). I have a long history of working on "knowledge equity" not only at various MW sites but also, for example, at CTLF, at JAD, as well as on my own site (sometimes using mediawiki, sometimes using other markup tools). I am a published translator and writer. I also have a long-standing interest in NLP. Here, for example, is a very recent example of some colorful possibilities that simple "character styles" afford English-language teachers to help language-learners to understand the verbal system in English.

Again: I bear no grudges and I am not asking to be permitted to contribute to en.wp's notorious problem areas. Outside of these "recentist" areas, I have actually been involved in very little conflict. I am requesting this reinstatement of contribution privileges because I have something to bring to the table and because the current situation prevents me from working fully in other areas of the WP universe (I cannot for example create test pages in user-space to look into the Cite Q template on en.wp and must put up with being reminded I've been blocked each time I wish to copy a reference from en.wp to *.wp) This is a great chance to show that English Wikipedia is indeed a project that anyone can edit, as long as they follow the rules, and is not a website where anyone can "be diagnosed" or a site where personal grudges and turf war battle-grounding are the guiding lights.

ps: I have not contacted anybody about this request prior to their participation. I did send both El C and Boing! a short email after they gave their opinion: in El C's case it was to thank them for their many reasonable paragraphs, and in Boing!'s case it was for another reason unrelated to en.wp.-- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 14:21, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Going into American politics articles post-1932, wouldn't be the best place to start (if you're reinstated), during this time. GoodDay (talk) 15:21, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi Good Day. It's been a long time! Yes, I have no intention of editing in any areas I'm topic banned from. (WP-AE, AP post-1932 (currently), GMO)

Any admin or non-admin should feel free to copy my statement to AN.-- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 15:28, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Copied & pasted at AN. GoodDay (talk) 16:03, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks GD! Have a nice weekend. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 16:11, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Hey, Sashi. Sorry to learn that the appeal isn't going as well as either one of us had hoped. I was struggling to think of ways to maybe turn the tide, and so it occurred to me that an underlying concern behind many of those who are wary (but may otherwise still be open) toward granting the appeal, might revolve around the threshold that they fear may be needed in order to respond to any possible future perceived disruption on your part. So, perhaps a good way to alleviate that concern would be for you to draft a sort of probation containing fairly strict conditions. That way, you are telling everyone that, 'hey, if I do stumble again, I am not asking for a full-on CBAN discussion to be undertaken again from scratch.' Possibly, that simply isn't something that interests you, perhaps because you just wouldn't want to edit with a sort of anyone-can-easily-result-in-revoking-my-reinstatement-for-the-slightest-reasons looming over your head, which is a position I'd totally respect. Still, more pragmatically, I'm just throwing the idea out there. Maybe listen to this while you think it over...? In any case, good luck! El_C 17:08, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Hey El C. I had a listen, thanks! (Here's something fun for you to listen to.) I think withdrawing my request to provide volunteer labor may be the best gift I can give en.wp. Sometimes, as Marcel Mauss explained, gifts are not so easy to accept. I'll give the noticeboard role-players --and those who have explicitly stated they will not abuse the lifting of their topic ban from discussing me -- some more time to reflect on their behaviour and ask again sometime in the future. My goal was not to introduce discord by requesting that en.wp live up to its slogan. I sincerely thank those people who took the time to try to convince those noticeboard players, but it is obvious at this point that there is still no consensus concerning my banning. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 23:38, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Argh, Sashi, what's that familiar saying: anything you say can and will be used against you in a noticeboard of lol.¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Anyway, understood. Indeed, maybe it is just a matter of more time needing to pass...? Hopefully. Thanks for that Naissam Jalal goodness — exciting sound! El_C 00:42, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Our loss. Cheers S, HNY! Levivich ^harass/_hound 01:21, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Well, let's not exaggerate too much... :) hny2u2! *creaking & clanking of closing sarcophagus* -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 15:49, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Your email

I do not recall the specifics, but it is not permitted to proxy for a banned user, nor for a banned user to solicit edits, especially in areas that led to their ban. That's why I revoked TPA. Since it has subsequently been temporarily restored and then removed again, and I did not enact any of the other changes and (especially) blocks, I don't have anything to add, I'm afraid. Guy (help! - typo?) 12:25, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Welcome to the Months of African Cinema Global Contest!

Greetings!

The AfroCine Project core team is happy to inform you that the Months of African Cinema Contest is happening again this year in October and November. We invite Wikipedians all over the world to join in improving content related to African cinema on Wikipedia!

Please list your username under the participants’ section of the contest page to indicate your interest in participating in this contest. The term "African" in the context of this contest, includes people of African descent from all over the world, which includes the diaspora and the Caribbean.

The following prizes would be recognized at the end of the contest:

• Overall winner
  • 1st - $500
  • 2nd - $200
  • 3rd - $100
• Diversity winner - $100
• Gender-gap fillers - $100
• Language Winners - up to $100*

Also look out for local prizes from affiliates in your countries or communities! For further information about the contest, the prizes and how to participate, please visit the contest page here. For further inquiries, please leave comments on the contest talkpage or on the main project talkpage. We look forward to your participation.--Jamie Tubers (talk) 23:20, 30th September 2021 (UTC)

Ýou can opt-out of this annual reminder from The Afrocine Project by removing your username from this list

The Months of African Cinema Contest Continues in November!

Greetings,

It is already past the middle of the contest and we are really excited about the Months of African Contest 2021 achievements so far! We want to extend our sincere gratitude for the time and energy you have invested. If you have not yet participated in the contest, it is not too late to do it. Please list your username as a participant on the contest’s main page.

Please remember to list the articles you have improved or created on the article achievements' section of the contest page so they can be tracked. In order to win prizes, be sure to also list your article in the users by articles. Please note that your articles must be present in both the article achievement section on the main contest page, as well as on the Users By Articles page for you to qualify for a prize.

We would be awarding prizes to different categories of winners:

• Overall winner
  • 1st - $500
  • 2nd - $200
  • 3rd - $100
• Diversity winner - $100
• Gender-gap filler - $100
• Language Winners - up to $100*

Thank you once again for your valued participation! --Jamie Tubers (talk) 18:50, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

You can opt-out of this annual reminder from The Afrocine Project by removing your username from this list

Talk page access temporarily restored

Not sure if the change in talk page access creates a ping, so posting here. —Floquenbeam (talk) 03:18, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

!ban request

Original Request

I have added two replies to commons since this discussion started.

• Reply #1 (Schazjmd) -- ps: ressasser means "to rehash", my mistake... I forgot the verb was French not English.
• Reply #2 (Yngvadottir) -- ps: I would also like to see a photo of "our" freshly cleaned cathedral on en.wp, and would also like to see the video of the Tour de France passing in front of Mont Pipet added to the article on Vienne.

• 
  freshly scrubbed cathedral
• the 13th stage of the Tour de France passed in front of Mont Pipet in 2022

Thank you for restoring talk page access for me to post replies to questions. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 04:50, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

[35] - GizzyCatBella🍁 19:14, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

I would be steering well-wide of anything even remotely to do with the war in Ukraine, in addition to the other Arbitration Enforcement areas alluded to above (I forget the acronyms for them all, but in general I'm not interested...). I did not come here with a calumet to battle or to say mean things about people. I came because I see en.wp's coverage of the francophone world could use work. Best to you GCB, -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 19:31, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

I did not come here with a calumet to battle or to say mean things about people Would that apply to other platforms also, such as Wikipediocracy or Wikipedia only? - GizzyCatBella🍁 19:51, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

The more active I am on wiki, the less active I am on WPO as a general rule. I wasn't a very active participant over there until it got cold. I've been too busy living life and taking photos for all that much internet. Now, if you'll excuse me, there's some provocative AfDs over on Commons I need to treat with kindness and calm. :) -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 20:12, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

(Note - no answer to my follow up question) - GizzyCatBella🍁 20:16, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

yet. I took care of Commons. As for saying mean things, I can agree not to say mean things, here, there, or anywhere, if you'd like. And I'm happy to say I'll steer clear of Mr. Marek in that regard if that's what you want to know. Already in his most recent thread over there I made only 3 of 130 comments, 2 of which did not concern him at all. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 20:44, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

@SashiRolls: That's a beautiful building! François Robere (talk) 20:25, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

The North face has been cleaned up in recent years, too... :) I prefer the abbey's grotesques though... some real baby-eaters in there!

• 
  Cathedral chimera
• 
  Abbey chimera (16 of them at least)

-- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 21:35, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

Reply #3

Digging into the river

I would like to add a couple links. As I've mentioned, I have been a member of various WMF projects (since opening my account at commons in 2012). I have a perfectly clean block record on all projects except en.wp (fr | Commons | data). I would also like to note that 70% of the items on my en.wp block record are either modifications or unblocks. Digging a little deeper is necessary: appearances can be deceptive.

Peaceful geographies

Accepting a formal blanket ban from all DS-areas broadly construed strikes me as unworkable in addition to being unwarranted. I notice "infobox" and "article titles" in the linked list of DS subjects for example. Creating an article with an infobox would technically open me up to criticism for violation of two DS-areas broadly construed. I don't want to put myself in a position where gotcha' filings could potentially waste a lot of editor time. (Granted, this is a reductio ad absurdum argument, I imagine nobody would actually do such a thing.)

For the time being and the foreseeable future, I can agree to avoid any page whose corresponding talk page is labeled "WARNING: ACTIVE ARBITRATION REMEDIES".

Regarding another comment: I would not wish a one-way interaction ban on anybody, as their potential for abuse is manifest. A two-way interaction ban with Volunteer Marek would not particularly bother me, if people really think it necessary given his statement here. In any case, interaction ban or no, I will not be engaging with him even if for some reason he suddenly takes an interest in editing pages related to Francophone culture, geography and letters. I recognize that these paragraphs lose me GCB's conditional support, making the current majority in favor of unbanning me slightly slimmer.

Finally, to respond to Procrastinating Reader... I have always found working on various.wp -- particularly in unheated areas -- to be an excellent and peaceful learning experience. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 12:37, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Quote: A two-way interaction ban with Volunteer Marek would not particularly bother me, if people really think it necessary given his statement here.

@SashiRolls, look, people don't think a two-way interaction ban with Volunteer Marek is necessary. People think that a one-way interaction ban with VM is necessary because of your past solo, persistent and unprovoked attacks on VM on a different platform. This would ensure you will not restart it here at one point. I witnessed your single-handed raids on VM, that's why I'm not trusting just promises (sorry @SashiRolls) PS - I'll keep your pledges to stay clear of VM in my records (you promised it twice). (And believe me or not but I wish you luck with your request but some conditions must be met. Later, you could ask for remaining restrictions to be lifted also, but after demonstrating that you can be trusted again.) - GizzyCatBella🍁 14:04, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

I see mixed thoughts on the need for such a thing, unless I'm misreading. In any case, I suppose it is possible that @ProcrastinatingReader: and @Objective3000: have not seen my replies to them, as I forgot to ping anyone. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 01:25, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Reply #4

a faintly iridescent cloud

Could someone please add a link to reply #3 and #4 to the noticeboard thread?

I'm not sure that I entirely understood your numbers, @Barkeep:. I know I was banned with 57% supporting a CBan (see numbers above on my TP). As of 2 Jan more than 60% of those who have bolded support or oppose have supported. I thank Yngvadottir, in particular, for wading into these unpleasantly murky waters so deeply, and taking the time to (significantly) improve an article along the way. In Jan 2021, I withdrew my request. In 2023, I will not be withdrawing my request because I know I have plenty to offer en.wp.

To any who still want to fight battles: happy new year! I've laid down all my arms and my legs are ready to carry me running from any m a / i cro-aggressions or MMORPGies I might perceive with my little i(d). As for the rancor that Barkeep notes, I'm sorry. I don't want people being painted black for offering to give me a chance to continue my work in the more peaceful climes en.wp has to offer (the 50m other pages that aren't battlegrounds).

Pinging Iridescent because I should have done so when I quoted him in reply #2. This is not a request that you get involved. I should let you know I paraphrased your statement from during the case, though. As long as I didn't misrepresent you then, that's the main thing.

Finally, I left you all new year's wishes over at my site in the form of a link to a fun video: Transglobal Underground, "Lookee Here", 1994. §. There may even be a cameo from one of my supporters, starting at 2:30.

Be well, everyone. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 23:24, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

adding forgotten pings for @Iridescent: and @Yngvadottir: -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 23:28, 2 January 2023 (UTC) fix ping for @Barkeep49:, with apologies. Having lived and worked in department #49, I have no excuse. ;) -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 06:34, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

My numbers are about the responsibility of two hypothetical people in a two person conflict. They have nothing to do with the percentages necessary to find consensus. Hope that addresses your confusion. Barkeep49 (talk) 10:49, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Comment

In the two weeks this has been open, I've managed another 450+ edits to Commons, 100 edits to fr.wp and some twiddling at wikidata. A recent page improvement, posted as a demonstration that if I ignore food-fights and don't interact with folks who have never given and will likely never give up on their quests, I can get more things done. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 00:14, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Before potentially losing TP access, I wanted to say the following. A "victim" of circumstances for which I indeed bear significant responsibility, I have been unable to contribute anywhere for a few days, and intend to take it easy for several more. The vicious and serially uncorroborated attacks at AN (particularly KoA) have indeed made me lose a little heart (despite my best efforts to ignore them), but the much-less-vocal (thank you!) majority, able to see through the persistent smokescreen and able to be forward-looking and positive, is much appreciated. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 23:45, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Unbanned

[36] I have unblocked you after closing the discussion at WP:AN. I suggest you take all of the concerns of those opposed to heart, as well as the concerns of the neutrals and supporters. Stay away from anything contentious, and stay away from any conflict. I suggest you self-impose 0rr, and unwatchlist and leave any article where you're involved in any conflict. You have vanishingly little rope left, and many that supported the unban also made it clear that this would be the last chance. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:21, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

• Welcome back. ...not much I can add that hasn't been said, except, perhaps obviously, to point to WP:BAIT, which I urge you to read and reread as needed. Cheers, best wishes, and happy editing, Jusdafax (talk) 03:53, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Welcome back. Now, please, no more comments on your opponents. Stay away from anything remotely controversial. I very much hope I made the right decision to vote to unban. starship.paint (exalt) 05:53, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
  • I've helped you archive the discussions previously above to your Been. I hope that this will be a good restart for you. starship.paint (exalt) 06:19, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
    • Go make your second chance a good one! Buffs (talk) 22:22, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
      • Anyone who quotes Leonard Cohen can't be all bad.:) O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:28, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you!

Before doing anything else I want to thank everyone who voted to let me get back to work. I really appreciate the time you took to do it!

This is obviously no time for speeches, but insofar as (in)action can speak louder than words, I wanted to mention that the power supply in my computer died last week. 😶💐

Given that I am not very skilled with the shiny phone interface (I am rewriting this message after inadvertently deleting it), I don't think it would be wise for me to jump into contributing anything yet as I might very well just make a mess of it. As such, I really appreciate your help with the key first housekeeping edit @Starship.paint:, as it would have been quite a bit more complicated for me to make it!

To misquote a couple legendary figures... "Be the well, do good work, and hug your cat!" 🐱

-- -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 10:40, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

🙂👍 - GizzyCatBella🍁 12:40, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Clean-up

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you.

This is regarding your change made to "Editing Allary Editions" 192.58.125.26 (talk) 16:52, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Sure. Please see this comment on the Signpost article, explaining the reason this clean-up edit was made. NB: the fr.wp and en.wp articles differ only in this added "controversies" section. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 16:57, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) FYI there's an essay about this, WP:CSECTION. Levivich (talk) 17:01, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Required notification

WP:AE. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:44, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

[37] Has been closed, you are reminded of the broad terms of their IBAN. Please review and take notice of the feedback from this discussion starship.paint (exalt) 13:25, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Yep, I'd noticed that it was correctly closed as consensus for "no action". The feedback suggests making no comment on the feedback, which is indeed my (admittedly somewhat loopy) plan. Cheers, -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 13:38, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Draft article

Hi, it's good to see you back editing. And please be sure to let me know at once if for any reason you are unable to respond, or would rather not.

I am almost positive I first became aware of the above draftified BLP from a post by you at that site I tend to avoid naming. You thanked me for my initial edit cutting it back to what was supported by what seemed to me to be the best references, as well as fixing a stupid typo. I've since edited it again adding more information. And I've since found still more, supported by Le Monde and Le Figaro as well as l'Obs, which I believe should also be acceptable here. At this point the gentleman's notability is indisputable, the coverage stretches over many years and covers several stages of his career (with very little in the way of negativity, although one thing I intend to add from my latest source search is his falling out with a former friendly rival). However, there's the court ruling against the WMF laid out in the recent blog post at that same off-wiki location. I have recently started to re-mainspace drafts after I consider I've sufficiently improved them with respect to neutrality and demonstration of notability, and that's what I would normally do in this case. But I'm thinking a trip to the BLP noticeboard would be advisable in this case in view of the legal case. (And also that revision-deletion of the earlier versions might be a good idea and running it by that noticeboard might be a good way to get that agreed to by knowledgeable Wikipedians who can read the sources.) Do you concur? Or do you consider the article should be either simply mainspaced, or left in draft? Yngvadottir (talk) 04:29, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

I think your idea about BLP/N is a good one. Could you let me know when you do, as I have some similar questions about a couple entries I toned down without removing them from mainspace.

For this particular page, I'm still concerned about this mention of "influence peddling" sourced only to the paywalled linforme.com (used 11 times in all of fr.wp). I wasn't able to find anything on this latest development in mainstream press when I last checked, which is strange. Looking at the site it seems like something I might like to read personally, but wouldn't cite at *.wp without being able to read the entire article and without confirmation in an outlet with a more established reputation.

I'll look at the draft a bit more, and, as always, appreciate your diligence . ;) -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 08:44, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Nicely rephrased. Just one further element from the recent Gala story ([38])... he appears to have 3 (three) kids now. 🤯

I see you noticed the story about Brotteaux. I may have to go up to Lyon to check out how the competition with Bocuse's bistro there is going!

ps: when I have access to a computer again, I should probably rework the French version based on your work here. I've stayed away from it so far because I saw the blanket revert on 7 Jan of a valiant clean-up effort. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 09:17, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Ooh, great source, thanks! I'll weave it in shortly. I'm afraid our article on the Opéra restaurant is going to need a big change. Sadly we have lots of loving shots of that incarnation, but nothing for CoCo. I looked it up because I was thinking there might be space for a second image in the English article now, and the nice red interior used on fr. seemed like a good choice. Speaking of fr., I hope you do, but that's appalling. And you've probably noticed that it's sprouted a forest of templates and a dire warning on the talk page. I've been thinking they're all scared to touch it over there, which is a pity since it's so bad I thought for a moment of having a try myself. Rejected the idea partly because over there it requires knowing the reputations of all these name-drop restaurants and I haven't even been to Paris in almost 50 years.

With this one more edit, I think I'll feel ready to raise a query at BLPN. I should be doing something else tonight my time ... and there's no big rush anyway. So maybe tomorrow. Please feel free to excise/replace any unacceptable source I've used, or fix further gaffes I've made. (And there may be folks watching from that unnameable site who want to edit the draft and/or to make comments about my chutzpah; I'm not a member so I can only see posts in the public forum section, and comments on the blog post if anyone adds one.) I plan to credit you with a ping when I ask, but make quite clear that I'm the prime mover and the one to blame. Yngvadottir (talk) 10:19, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

I'd seriously rather you didn't credit me for anything, as I didn't do anything. If anyone deserves credit for you finding out about this, it's Andreas & Somey/Jake. I'll put BLP/N back on my watchlist. I'd removed all the noticeboards except RS/N, which seemed safe. 😉 One of these days I'll also track down my WPO password to compliment Giraafe on his solid understanding of French love for la perfide Albion. It appears their latest socks were whacked on fr.wp yesterday. Maybe here too, I haven't looked. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 20:40, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Posted, with I'm afraid a credit for correcting/advising my edits a couple of times. Yngvadottir (talk) 10:40, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Nazism in history

I notice above you've been advised to stay away from controversial topics, so here's your warning that Nazi history is definitely one of these. Furthermore, many editors in this area argue for the use of academic rather than news sources for additional reliability and due weight. (t · c) buidhe 05:06, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

I agreed to stay away from pages that were marked with DS warnings and to stay out of fights. I was not topic banned from the subject of the second world war in France. I'm not sure what the problem is concerning the only reference I added? It is a reference to an article in the NYT that discusses a 500-page academic report shortly after its appearance. (§). I stand by my improvements to that page and to the previously single-referenced page here. (These are the only references to entries I added yesterday, otherwise I only expanded pre-existing references with technical info (like language, author).) -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 10:06, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

@SashiRolls .. plus, one of the conditions of your unban was ---> Topic banned from Eastern Europe including Russia and Poland, broadly construed. Now take a look at the article of Alice Simon you recently edited. Where was she born? Where did she die? Take a look the categories of that article - Category:Polish Jews who died in the Holocaust. Why Sashi? Why ?🤦🏻‍♀️ - GizzyCatBella🍁 05:42, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

According to the sources in the entry, she died in France after living in Berlin. As such, I did not notice the tags, or pay much attention to her birthplace as I was focused on the problems with the article. Insofar as I've never done anything wrong in the Eastern Europe area, I'm unused to having to check for tangential relationships. Why did I edit the entry? Because a significant percentage of the article was a coatrack created by a prolific French sockpuppet that needed fixing. I will not return to the article, even though, as you point out by asking where she died, it still contains an error. (Now that you mention it, it's also worth noting that her birthplace is unsourced and likely wrong if indeed her father (and grandfather, both academics) were who the entry says they were, as both were born, lived and worked in Berlin.) -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 10:06, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

🤦🏻‍♀️... now you continue by linking the Robert Remak (mathematician) (take a look where he died) article in your comment above. Come on Sashi. - GizzyCatBella🍁 13:06, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Please stay off my talk page, GCB. Thank you. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 13:09, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Causeur

Hi I see you undid a redirect from this page. Do you object to the redirect or are you planning to do something else with this page? As it stands it’s not a proper disambiguation. Thanks Mccapra (talk) 10:00, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Could you go to the disambiguation page and take a look at the "What links here" page and explain the problem to me? The incoming links refer to the publication I added to the disambiguation page. If you look at Merriam-Webster, you'll see their entry on "causeur" (§) makes no reference to their entry on "causerie" (§) ... same for Wiktionary. (Oxford & Cambridge are both down today). Likewise, if you look at a French dictionary like the Trésor de la langue française (§).

While I did not wish to delete the OR redirect, it is indeed preventing proper linking via the interlanguage link template. I noticed this problem while editing Élisabeth Lévy and was forced to use a work-around syntax in the lede as a result. Perhaps the simplest solution is to delete the redirect entirely? (I believe the current solution is a better one, until such time as the Causeur (magazine) entry is created in English.)

@Utfor:, @Mccapra:

PS: I notice there is a Wikipedia internal link from Women in Red, which is probably the origin of this (correcting to "causeuse" would also require a disambiguation page (cf. fr:causeuse)) ... -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 10:50, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

It seems this is solved now. Thanks! Also, I was misremembering: the ill template kludge was in a reference template. I learned about the lt parameter looking at the history of the page. :). -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 15:35, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Yup, Wikipedia at its best. You go out for a few hours, come back, and find someone else has sorted it all out. Thanks Mccapra (talk) 16:23, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

No interwiki consistency policy

Regarding the discussion at Talk:Raymond de Geouffre de La Pradelle, there is no policy that calls for consistency across Wikipedias. In fact, there are policies that end up with different spellings in different Wikipedias (e.g., en:Christopher Columbus, fr:Christophe Colomb, es:Cristóbal Colón, and so on.). So if French Wikipedia spells it one way, that is no guarantee that English Wikipedia will spell it that way, although of course in the great majority of cases, they'll be spelled the same.

There is no "consistent family name spelling " policy within English Wikipedia either, so following your example: if grandfather, father, and son have differently spelled names in the preponderance of reliable English sources about them, then their Wikipedia articles will reflect those differences. If you standardized to the capital 'L' *because* of the BNF, that was not a valid reason to do so.

In this case, I suspect you made the right call, even if for the wrong reason, so no change is necessary at the article. When editing at en-wiki, please remember to use reliable English sources and base your decisions on that. Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 06:55, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Nahel Merzouk protests

Hey, I have seen that you removed the categories. I added them because writing phrases like “we will make you a shoa” onto even more than one Holocaust memorial is very clearly antisemitic in my opinion and shouldn’t be downplayed. --FPSalman (talk) 10:29, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

You can try to gain consensus on the T/P but I don't think you will succeed. Let's keep content discussions on the article talk page. Best, -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 10:31, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

A barnstar for your efforts

		The Current Events Barnstar
		In recognition of your contributions to the articles Nahel Merzouk protests and Killing of Nahel Merzouk. --Cdjp1 talk 15:58, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks @Cdjp1:. I've adopted your compromise solution for spacing in references (space after each field), as I do believe it renders the ref readable enough. I think I was going overboard with spaces before. :) -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 08:18, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Hey can we talk a sec

I'd answer at WPO, but I am still not a member, nor sure I want to become one.

I just noticed your comment that I made you feel "labelled". Could you expand on that a bit? There's probably no way to oppose an un-topic ban for someone and not make them uncomfortable, but believe it or not I think it's a bad idea from your point of view as well. EE is (or has been) full of people who are very dogmatic about certain beliefs, and you don't strike me as someone who is going to deal well with claims that including the sexual assaults in Ukraine is a BLP violation against the Russian Army. Or if you can, huzzah, you are a better editor than I, because that's where I blew up. I noticed that you "labelled"" me as resembling GCB, which would be quite an insult if I took it seriously, but I am actually nowhere near as dogmatic. In any event, since somebody applied the magic revdel button, apparently however open you were about your identity I wasn't supposed to notice that, which I wish I had known, as if that's the rule, my post was pointless and so was your reaction...

I'd like to talk to a bit more about that, but I am not certain that this is coming across the way I intend, as somewhat guardedly friendly. If it isn't, you probably don't want advice from me, but I actually empathize with you a bit, particularly with the part about being a wikicat. We can go into that if we pursue this conversation. It's advice I should follow myself for what it is worth, but that doesn't make it less valid, or mean that I am not in fact trying to do so. Let's see how you receive this. My main goal here, since someone thinks I done you wrong™, is to apologize for that. I don't really agree, but I accept that somebody with revdel powers has decided so, which means I should address it. In any event I wish you well with the Macron article, take care. I am not watching your page, so please ping me if you choose to answer Elinruby (talk) 02:54, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Hey Elin, if you were a member over there, you would know that I avoid one of the most popular threads on the subject you mention like the plague. So the protective "it's for your own good" routine isn't really necessary. As for the rule, it's a rule, that's all. Nobody gave you any grief over it, Primefac just painstakingly cleaned up what en.wp considers, for better or for worse, to be a policy violation. I appreciated it, because it made clear that I wasn't an exception that one could treat differently than everyone else, though as I said, I didn't ask him -- or anyone -- to get involved. Being guardedly friendly is a good idea™, but I don't think further chit-chat unrelated to the care and feeding of the cyclops is wise, so I'm not going to ping you. Nevertheless, for content questions, don't hesitate to pop in if needed. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 06:43, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Suggestion

SR, allow me to make a brief suggestion. Walk away from off-Wiki forums permanently. They ain’t worth it. Best wishes, Jusdafax (talk) 12:39, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

I'd feel like such a turncoat, though. :) -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 00:20, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Re "Speaker's notes" section on userpage

Génial, ce morceau de Pantagruel! Pour info: Vous pouvez également vous servir de {{Reflist-talk}} pour faire placer la « footnote » en fin de section, si cette fonctionnalité vous intéresse. Par exemple:

En plein mer, nous banquetant, grignotant, devisant, et faisant beau et court discours...

Le pilot feist responce : Seigneur, de rien ne vous effrayez.
Icy est le confin de la mer glaciale, sus laquelle feut au commencement de l’hyver dernier passé grosse & felonne bataille, entre les Arispammiens, & les Nephelibarres.

Eric ^talk 23:12, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Ooo very nice, I'd forgotten there was a maroon template! (As I said already on your t/p, I appreciate the tip, I hadn't thought about using that reflist-talk template).

Pendant que j'y suis, @Eric:, pas de souci de mon côté pour le tutoiement la prochaine fois qu'on se croise. Notre échange m'a motivé d'ajouter une photo à Tournon-sur-Rhône. :) -- -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 00:58, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

References

Servetus leaving alive

Salut SR- Regarding this change, I just wanted to make sure you know that there is some nuance in the English of the earlier version that you remove with this edit. The version that comes across as wordy to you is a more indirect and subtle statement, while your version reads like a much more direct assertion on the part of the speaker (Frellon?) that he will have Servetus killed. Now, I can't speak to the Latin (sorry, couldn't help myself), but I just wanted to make sure you know that you might be removing more than mere flourish, assuming Cavard was not over-embellishing his translation. Eric ^talk 01:09, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes, Cavard definitely may have over-translated the four words. It was the translation I saw on Michael Servetus, where the Latin is also given, that made me look back at it. It's odd, normally Cavard doesn't gloss Latin but here he did. The idea is Calvin wouldn't suffer him leaving alive, but I thought it best to keep the language more modest. Cavard notes his short angry sentences in Latin just after writing to Servetus himself in florid French. I'll look at it again tomorrow.

What is more worrying here is that in my text it was not clear these were Calvin's words. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 02:15, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for explaining! Re Calvin vs Frellon: I was confused when I read that sentence, but I am very sleepy, so it might just be me. Eric ^talk 02:39, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

You're right, thanks for the comment, I've changed it. Calvin *is* pretty much saying he'll have Servetus killed if he comes to Geneva (which in the end is what happened), but it's true the future passive patiar makes it sound less like a mob-hit and more like a churchy kind of thing.

Here's the Latin Calvin wrote: VIVUM EXIRE NUMQUAM PATIAR

I've modified the translation to: I will never bear him leaving alive.

I found a simple thing that was making that complicated series with Frellon, Servetus and Calvin harder to parse. Not sure it completely fixes the problem, but it should help.-- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 03:08, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

I still cannot bear not knowing Latin. It's on my list. I see that Google Translate gives the rather forceful "I WILL NEVER ALLOW TO GO OUT ALIVE" for that phrase. But when I feed it simply "patiar", it renders that as "suffer", which could could have a good old-style ring to it, e.g. I will never suffer him to leave alive. On another aspect of that passage: Did Calvin write the "if my authority has any value" part in Latin also? I would almost think that the English would go "if my authority is worth anything [here]...", but of course I don't have access to the source. Eric ^talk 11:47, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

That sounds good. I really want to translate auctoritas with a different word than "authority" though (power, influence, sway, etc.) : e.g. Nam si venerit, modo valeat mea auctoritas, vivum exire numquam patiar as should he actually come, as long as I hold any sway (in this town), I will never have to see him leave alive. The verbs do seem to all be in the subjunctive so he's likely expressing an "ideal" conditional. Here's what Cavard does with it... it's the "pour peu que" that struck me (and which I'd rendered as "inasmuch" after crossing out "as long as"): car s'il vient, pour peu que mon autorité ait de valeur, jamais je ne souffrirai qu'il en sorte vivant.  :) -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 16:16, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes, that looks good. Now, just to go looking for trouble... This is just from popping the words "nam" and "modo" into Google Translate, considering the possible meanings they give, and then otherwise departing from direct translation and winging it... Might he have said something like this in English?: Now, to the degree that I wield any power / carry any weight [in this town], were he to come here, I would see that he did not come out alive. (or something like ...should not suffer / could not bear that he come out alive). Not necessarily promoting any of that, just wondering what you think. Eric ^talk 16:48, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

I decided to take the pressure off by removing the quotation marks. I actually think I link "to the extent/degree" better than "as long as", but I'm not going to go back and edit it again, because I'm becoming a bit ridiculously obsessive about it. You should, of course, feel free to do whatever you wish with it. :) -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 20:48, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Ah, I know that obsession all too well! I was foolish enough to try doing translation for a living a while back. And I still agonize over not finding a clever translation for Unmitigated Gaul, the title of an article in an assignment given to us by a great prof over twenty years ago. I made a couple tweaks to that Calvin note that I think will make it more clear to readers not familiar with the material. Oh, and if I ever make a short list of favorite edit summaries, "too many Henrys" will be on it! Eric ^talk 12:57, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Editing restriction removed

Per community consensus, the editing restriction of the topic ban relating to Eastern Europe, broadly construed, imposed on you has been removed. I hope you will take the good faith of the supporters and the feedback of the dissenting opinions into account in your future editing behaviour. qedk (t 愛 c) 09:18, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

I really appreciate all the people who came back to this weird sanction and said what they thought of it. Thanks sincerely for caring, I won't let any of you down who saw/said it was not necessary. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 20:21, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Oh good, now it can all be just Europe :-) Yngvadottir (talk) 21:16, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Native American genocide in the United States

Hello! Your submission of Native American genocide in the United States at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there at your earliest convenience. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! 4meter4 (talk) 22:27, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

DYK for Native American genocide in the United States

On 18 February 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Native American genocide in the United States, which you recently nominated. The fact was ... that because the Cherokee people were deliberately routed through cholera-stricken areas, their dislocation has been given as an example of Native American genocide in the United States? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Native American genocide in the United States. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Native American genocide in the United States), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:02, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Meow

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		Thanks for being awesome CarmenEsparzaAmoux (talk) 00:27, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm conditioned to worry when I see that red light telling me I've got messages, so it was a great pleasure to see this! I'm very hesitant to get involved in that topic area, but that particular question didn't seem too complicated at all. And what's more, you've reminded me my cat needs some attention. :) -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 00:55, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Glad I could be a pleasant surprise :) And aww omg I say hi to your cat CarmenEsparzaAmoux (talk) 04:03, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Time sink editor

Don't think I have ever seen an editor get reverted more or waste the time of other editors more than KlayCax. The question we have to ask ourselves.. is this person simply a net negative for the project and other contributors. Not all of their edits are bad..... but a huge chunk are controversial and lead to endless debate and them just sneaking back in their preferred version over time. I've been asking myself is it better to simply watch over this person..... Or block them and deal with the next shock puppet. Sometimes easier to deal with what we know than trying to figure out who they may or may not be in the future. Moxy🍁 21:26, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

I don't have the answer, but my experience is that if you "watch over" an editor, they soon cry "hounding" and the watcher then gets shot (which can hurt) :P -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 21:36, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

I think they have 7 ongoing request for comments for the most recent times they've been reverted. Interesting to see how perplexed many editors are in a wide range of topics. That said..real reason here this time.... is about the United States article and natives. A USA topic I generally avoid as I'm simply not that familiar with the academic research. But why aren't we saying something simply like The westward expansion and nation building resulted in the displacement of many Native Peoples, that controversially has been described as ethnic cleansing or genocide by various scholars source Moxy🍁 04:00, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

This seems like a good suggestion. Would you like me to transfer it to the talk page for you ? -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 18:48, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

ITN recognition for War in Sudan (2023–present)

On 14 April 2024, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article War in Sudan (2023–present), which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Schwede66 03:00, 14 April 2024 (UTC)