User talk:SashiRolls

For those who like to rummage, the been is here.

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, [1] -- 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[2] 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 [3], 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)

[4] - 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)

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