User talk:SashiRolls

Warning

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

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)Template:Z48

Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction

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)

You have been blocked 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: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

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)

Unblock request

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

---

Request reason:

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 [1] or for [2]. Reasonable people might wonder at this double standard. 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 03:45, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Decline reason:

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)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

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 [3]. 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)